Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Pat McFadden (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 10 July 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [Lords].


Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [Lords]

It is important to remind ourselves of one of the central purposes of the Bill, which is to ensure consistency in regulatory enforcement. This goes back to the Hampton report of a few years ago, which identified a significant problem of inconsistency of enforcement around the country. That is where the idea of the primary authority/enforcement authority relationship comes from. We are not starting from a perfect situation in which inconsistencies do not exist. For example, we heard the case of a manufacturer for a multi-site business which cleared a new product line with its primary authority, under the voluntary system that operates at present, before dispatching the product to the retailer. Despite that, a different local authority believed that the product violated regulations and threatened the store with prosecution. The manufacturer claims that the incident cost them £25,000 in wasted stock. That is what can happen when we do not have clear rules that ensure consistency.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
478 c1583 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Complaints Costs Business Local government Powers Standards Small businesses Regulation Local Better Regulation Office
Legislation
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill (HL) 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk