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 a consistency measure. That is how I would characterise it. Costs were another substantive issue raised in the debate, but hon. Members did not mention the fact that the capacity for the recovery of costs from businesses for the primary authority relationship is built into the Bill. We covered that in Committee when we discussed the submission that we received from Hertfordshire county council. Interestingly, despite the fact that it is in the Bill, businesses have still sought it in our discussions with them. They value the consistency that will be brought about by the changes that we are making. It is important to bear that in mind when considering the amendments and how the Bill as a whole will operate. If the hon. Member for Solihull presses the amendment, the Government will not be able to accept it. I hope that she will withdraw it on the basis of my comments.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 478 c1586
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:08:47 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_491747
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_491747
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_491747