Proceeding contribution from Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench) 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]
The noble Lord cannot be right. Clause 40(3) states: "““For the purposes of this Part””—" which includes this and Clause 51— "““a ‘discretionary requirement’ means … a monetary penalty””," among other things. Why is it not covered by Clause 51?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 698 c357GC
- 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 02:33:14 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_440701
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_440701
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_440701