Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Viscount Bledisloe (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 cannot ask a question, so I suppose I will now have to speak. I fully understand the purpose of Amendment No. 65A, and I entirely agree that the regulator himself cannot be the proper person to receive and decide on these representations. He has already decided that an offence has been committed, which is why he has instituted the proceedings. But I do not understand why the noble Lord seeks to include this independent person in Clause 42(2)(b). When the representations have been received, under Clause 42(2)(c) the regulator has to decide, "““whether to … impose the discretionary requirement””," or whatever. There is no amendment to remove the regulator from that. The independent person receives these representations. He presumably then puts them in his file and the regulator goes back to deciding whether the offence is proved and what penalty is to be imposed. Am I missing something? Has the noble Lord failed to carry his amendment to its full conclusion in the remainder of this part of the Bill?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
700 c819 
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