I support the amendment, as can be seen on the Marshalled List. I have suggested two other places where the same words should be added in Amendments Nos. 49 and 105, which are in this group. My noble friend has set out exactly why we have pressed these. When dealing with this point, the CBI stated: "““The Hampton review recommended that all regulatory activity should be on the basis of a clear, comprehensive risk assessment. The LBRO should be given the powers to ensure that any sanctions, or inspections, must follow a risk-assessment by the regulator or local authority. By targeting those who present higher risks, resources can be freed up, rogue traders cracked down on, and compliant business can be rewarded with a light-touch enforcement regime””."
That expresses it extremely well.
Amendment No. 105 refers to sanctions in the later part of the Bill, but it is the same point. Amendment No. 49 is also slightly later. But the same point occurs at all three points in the Bill. Hence, it is right to discuss the three together. I hope that the Minister will be persuaded by the arguments of my noble friend and the CBI.
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Cope of Berkeley
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 21 January 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c44-5GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:37:48 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_436849
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_436849
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_436849