---

Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 134: 134: Clause 39, page 16, line 32, leave out from second ““a”” to end of line 35 and insert ““person is given a notice offering him the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for that offence by payment of a fixed penalty— (a) no proceedings shall be instituted for that offence before the expiration of the period specified in the notice pursuant to section 38(3)(d) following the date of the notice; and (b) he shall not be convicted of that offence if he pays the fixed penalty before the expiration of that period.”” The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment as to the Government’s intentions, and as to whether the drafting is quite right. I am grateful to the Trading Standards Institute, which has drawn to a number of your Lordships’ attention a possible weakness in this clause. It is quite obvious that Clause 39 intends to say that there cannot be an element of double jeopardy and that if the fixed penalty is imposed on somebody they cannot then be convicted of a criminal offence in relation to the same action or omission. That is clearly the intention of Clause 39. It is suggested that we should amend Clause 39 as set out in Amendment No. 134 that stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. It would bring the legislation into line with other legislation with respect to fixed penalty notices, thus allowing the regulated person to accept the fixed monetary penalty to discharge their liability for future action through the payment of the penalty within the time period set. The suggestion is that if that is not put in the enforcing authority could proceed to impose an alternative sanction on the regulated person and not fall foul of the double jeopardy argument. The draftsman may not think that this is necessary. For that reason it is a probing amendment, and it is really a drafting amendment. I beg to move.