Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord De Mauley (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL].


Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Hodgson I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 65A and 65B, which are grouped with Amendment No. 65. They are probing amendments to explore a particular point. For example, what will happen with a company owning the fabric of public houses, some of which may be managed by employees of the company? The business is clearly under the ownership of the company and if, for the sake of argument, the company is headquartered in Wolverhampton, it might choose the local authority of its headquarters as its primary authority. As the Bill is drafted, I think it is the intention that the primary authority would have jurisdiction over all the managed pubs in the company. Would the tenanted pubs, the fabric of which are owned by the company but each of whose tenants are running small businesses in their own right, also have the cover of the same primary authority?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c149GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Business Anti-social behaviour Charity Commission Gambling Commission Franchises Highways Agency Local government Office of Fair Trading Regulation Local Better Regulation Office
Legislation
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill (HL) 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk