Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord De Mauley (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]

moved Amendment No. 121: 121: Clause 38, page 15, line 35, leave out ““requiring”” and insert ““of intent to require”” The noble Lord said: My amendments in this group are very similar in effect to those tabled by my noble friend Lord Goodlad, which we have just debated at some length, so I shall, I hope, please Members of the Committee by not arguing the case in full. A major basis for the Minister rejecting my noble friend’s amendment was that it would add complexity, and I suspect his criticisms of this series of amendments will be identical. Our view of whether that complexity would be worth while is critically dependent on the earlier question we discussed about a better understanding of the quantum of fixed penalties, so I urge the Minister to think carefully about how far he can go towards producing those important criteria that he earlier said would be laid down by order. I move this amendment only to allow him an opportunity to comment on that. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c371GC 
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