moved Amendment No. 13:"Page 42, line 20, leave out from ““against”” to ““in”” in line 21 and insert ““the officer, the enforcement authority of which he is an officer or the OFT””"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to change sub-section (3) of new Section 36F to ensure that the clause does what was originally intended.
Clause 50 deals with officers of enforcement authorities other than the OFT. New Section 36F(2) makes the OFT responsible for the actions of these officers while they are fulfilling their duties under Section 36C (access to premises) and Section 36D (access to premises under warrant). However, new Section 36F(3) disapplies new Section 36F(2) in the case of criminal proceedings against an officer or the enforcement authority. It does not currently mention the OFT, and we believe that, for the sake of clarity, the OFT should be specifically mentioned. This amendment therefore just clarifies the position as originally intended. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Consumer Credit Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 18 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Consumer Credit Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c755 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:14:42 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292632
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292632
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292632