Skip to main content

1-20 of 123 results for subject:Ofwat

Legislation X
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill (HL) 2007-08

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

More
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill (HL) 2007-08 (123)

Subject

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

moved Amendment No. 57: 57: Clause 39, page 17, line 8, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert— ““(2) Those results are that— (a) where a regulator proposes to impose a fixed monetary penalty on a person, the regulator must serve on that person a notice of what is...

Member
Lord Bach (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c810-1
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am assuming that we are on Amendment No. 55. There are no other amendments grouped with it, and its purpose is straightforward: to get rid of Clause 38 on fixed monetary penalties. It is no fault whatever of the noble and learned Lord promoting Amendment No. 55...

Member
Lord Borrie (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c805-6
House
House of Lords

My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, there has been considerable discussion about the regulator's requirement to bring forward a case to a criminal standard of proof. That is a requirement. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that given that this was debated at some length...

Member
Baroness Vadera (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c818
House
House of Lords

My Lords, before Amendment No. 57 is agreed to, perhaps I may speak briefly to my Amendment No. 59. The notice of intent to serve the penalty should contain all facts and matters relied on. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will say, ““Yes, that is exactly what...

Member
Lord Lyell of Markyate (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c811
House
House of Lords

My Lords—

Member
Viscount Eccles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c817
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend, who put the point much better than I did. I do not think that the Minister’s response has addressed all my points. I should be most grateful if she would consider them after today; as indeed I will consider...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c818
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I can certainly confirm that, particularly when it comes to blokesses. On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 58 to 60 not moved.] Clause 40 [Fixed monetary penalties: criminal conviction]:

Member
Baroness Vadera (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c812
House
House of Lords

My Lords, is there an option in the matter? One cannot speak if the amendment has been withdrawn, and I was hoping to have an opportunity to say a few sentences. Today, all I wish to say is that, as I did when we discussed the Bill previously, I support...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c803
House
House of Lords

My Lords, are we still addressing Amendment No. 57? Is it in order to speak to Amendment No. 57, or has that gone by?

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c807
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I wish to speak not to Amendment No. 56 but to government Amendment No. 83. I hope noble Lords will bear with me if for the purposes of my observations I ally it to Clause 53 because the phrase with which I am concerned—““rights of appeal””—appears in government...

Member
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c806-7
House
House of Lords

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...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c807-8
House
House of Lords

My Lords— Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c806
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 56: 56: Clause 39, page 17, line 6, leave out from ““(2)”” to end of line 7 The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Member
Lord Goodlad (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c806
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I entirely agree. I rather took the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, aback. I was in the process of withdrawing—I think that the words had emitted from my mouth—Amendment No. 55. We have all been muddled about how we can say some sensible things that must be...

Member
Lord Lyell of Markyate (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c806
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene, but I am extremely puzzled by this. I have been listening to the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, which would not be difficult because he spoke extensively at Second Reading, as did the noble Lord, Lord Neill of...

Member
Lord Razzall (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c804-5
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has at last got it right. We should have taken all the amendments together, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, told us. I suggest that we get on and do that. It will be greatly for the convenience...

Member
Lord Lyell of Markyate (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c804
House
House of Lords

My Lords, we have got into this mess because the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has invented an entirely new procedure, whereby, on a group of amendments, the Minister speaks only to the first one, then makes a second speech about a few more and then makes a third speech about...

Member
Viscount Bledisloe (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c804
House
House of Lords

My Lords, we are in a bit of a muddle. Perhaps I can clarify, from my experience, what will happen. When my noble friend on the Front Bench moved the group of amendments, she spoke to several of them and then we had advice from the Deputy Speaker that, as...

Member
Lord Desai (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c804
House
House of Lords

My Lords, it has not been discussed. Only the government Minister spoke on Amendment No. 83, purely and simply to say that it was part of the group. I understood that we were able to speak to the amendments because they had been grouped by the Minister and that others...

Member
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c803-4
House
House of Lords

moved Amendments Nos. 99 and 100: 99: Clause 70, page 33, line 17, leave out ““are”” and insert ““that person considers to be”” 100: Clause 70, page 33, line 18, after ““which”” insert ““that person considers to”” On Question, amendments agreed to. [Amendment No. 101 not moved.] Clause 71 [Functions...

Member
Baroness Vadera (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2008
Reference
700 c846
House
House of Lords