Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Monday, 31 March 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL].


Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have a question for the noble Baroness, but I confess to the fact, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that I did not make any submission to Professor Macrory; I made no input into the pre-legislative inquiries conducted before the Bill came before the House. Nor do I think that I had any obligation whatever; and nor can that be a requirement before I am allowed to address your Lordships on clauses now coming before us in a Bill. I find that a completely astonishing doctrine. Enough on that point. My point for the noble Baroness is that I have a real problem with new subsection (4) proposed by Amendment No. 57. It states: "““Provision pursuant to subsection (2)(c)(ii) ... may include provision for other circumstances in which the regulator may not decide to impose a fixed monetary penalty””." That seems to me to be totally unrelated to anything that I have read. Am I missing the point? Am I looking at the wrong subsection? What does it mean?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
700 c807-8 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Criminal proceedings Appeals Business Bureaucracy Enforcement Ofgem Fines Financial Services Authority Local government Ofwat Publicity Magistrates' courts Office of Fair Trading Postal Services Commission Tribunals Regulation Wales Office of Rail Regulation Local Better Regulation Office
Legislation
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill (HL) 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk