Proceeding contribution from Lord Lyell of Markyate (Conservative) 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]
From what the Minister says, unless the guidance to be given under the prescribed criteria is rather limited or arbitrary, which I am sure it is not, it sounds as though the prescribed criteria will say that you should take into account the following factors—I am making these up and there could probably be many more: whether the offender made a profit; whether it was done deliberately; the size of the business; the personal circumstances of the offender, such as illness or suffering some mishap; or whether it arose from a misunderstanding. One could go on. These are all things that a court would consider in seeking to provide a just result within the ambit of the maximum penalty. If junior officials will be required to do that as a result of prescribed criteria, would it not be a lot better to leave it to a court?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 698 c358GC
- 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_440703
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_440703
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_440703