---

Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

Let me reinforce my earlier point. Among the public there is a willingness to accept that it may be that for some things that they do that are wrong, such as going through a red traffic light, it is more practical to pay the £60 than to go to the magistrates’ court. At that point, you have two belief systems in opposition to each other. There is a belief system that says, ““On the whole, I would really rather go to a court and rely on the court for justice””, and there is the other system, which is utilitarian, and it says, ““Life is too hectic. I want to move on; I will pay the £60 and forget all about it””. Those are in opposition, and the Bill straddles those two belief systems. It says, ““Up to a certain point, I hope you will accept summary justice applied by officials making decisions and saying, ‘Would you like to settle this for £1,500 or not?’””. A line is drawn somewhere with the criteria and the amount of money. The utilitarian school will cease to want to be utilitarian and it will say, ““I would rather go to the court””. That boundary between the application of economics and the wish to have justice in a much more worked-out way is the difficulty that I have with this whole part of the Bill.