---

Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 107: 107: Clause 34, page 14, line 21, after ““instrument”” insert ““and shall not be made under this section unless the Minister is satisfied that the regulator is fully compliant with any Code issued from time to time in accordance with section 22 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (c. 51) for such time as that section shall remain in force”” The noble Lord said: Clause 34 clearly goes to the heart of this part of the Bill, as is indicated by the hour and a quarter that we have already spent on the issue. I did not participate in the debate on the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, not only because I do not agree with him, but I thought that the argument had been perfectly well set out by him and I knew that that the Minister would do that with his own argument. There are two fundamental principles here that the Government are seeking to implement: first, the Macrory review; and I do not want yet again to go over the ground covered by that discussion—you either accept that Macrory made his case for a better system of sanctions or he did not, whereby the old system should be kept. I happen to agree with the government approach and Professor Macrory. However, the second set of principles that this legislation endeavours to implement are those set out in the Hampton review. The purpose of the amendment in my name, and Amendment No. 108 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and others, puts the view that if we are in Clause 24 to give powers to regulators to implement the Macrory review, the Hampton principles should be implemented in the Bill. That is the purpose of my amendment and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I have no pride of authorship of my amendment and I doubt if he has of his. We are trying to make the same point. I beg to move.