Proceeding contribution from Lord Berkeley (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 30 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL].
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]
Perhaps I could pose a supplementary question. The Minister kindly mentioned the Civil Aviation Authority wishing to be withdrawn from Schedule 5. If that is agreed, as I am sure the Committee will agree, that presumably means that there are no offences that the CAA would wish to enforce as the CAA rather than someone else enforcing them, which comes under Clause 35(1)(b), "““a person, other than a designated regulator””." In other words, it is done by someone else, as my noble friend said. Are we in danger of something falling between two stools if an organisation’s name is not in Schedule 5 but there are things that these authorities and many others might have the power to enforce but do not?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 698 c351GC
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Courts Business Civil proceedings Civil Aviation Authority Enforcement Fixed penalties Ofgem Fines Regulation Local Better Regulation Office Stop notices
- Legislation
- European Communities Act 1972
- Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill (HL) 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 02:28:59 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_440672
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_440672
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_440672