These are important amendments and I am grateful for the opportunity they provide for me to give what I hope will seem like assurances about the detailed operation of the scheme. We are sympathetic to the intentions behind all the amendments that have been spoken to. The noble Viscount has put his case robustly and extremely well. This is the first time I have ever been allowed to praise a judge or an ex-judge. Normally they did not praise me, but they were quite open to say things about me. The noble Viscount put his case extremely strongly. He and others will have read the guide which accompanies the Bill and I hope they find it useful.
We have made clear our intention to propose exemptions by statutory instrument to the requirement to contact the primary authority covering all the issues that have been raised. My officials worked very closely with representatives of the sector on the basis of the draft Bill over the summer to settle those cases where the primary authority scheme could get in the way of effective enforcement. Consultation revealed a number of distinct issues which the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness raised that needed to be dealt with. The guide lists these exhaustively but I shall refer only to a couple.
We have no intention of inhibiting officers from seizing evidence where there is a need to do so quickly if it would be crucial to a prosecution at a later stage. We have no intention of preventing emergency action to deal with imminent and serious risk to human health. We have no intention of stopping officers from taking sensible steps where there is a practical issue to be dealt with—a faulty alarm, for example, in the early hours—and where a cumbersome process of consultation would be against reason and in no one’s interests.
We have not sought to put these issues on the face of the Bill as we believe that that would be likely to undermine the effectiveness of the scheme. Clause 26 allows for an order which would exclude certain categories of action all together from the definition of enforcement action. It will address the issue of routine exchanges and informal advice. Clause 27 enables an order to specify enforcement actions which should be allowed to proceed without the requirement to notify the primary authority beforehand.
Three main considerations have led us to take this approach to these exemptions. First, many of the terms involved in catching such actions can be subjective—““regulations that are local in character””; ““insignificant burdens for the business””; ““financial interests of consumers””. These may require substantial, detailed, technical explanation of a kind that is not suitable for primary legislation if they are not to create significant loopholes that enforcing authorities and businesses may be able to exploit.
Secondly, the legislation underlying the regulations is very diverse in character and scope. Exemptions will be detailed and are likely to need detailed and tailored treatment of the kind that an order allows for better than legislation. Finally, while we believe the list of exemptions in the guide is comprehensive, issues may arise in particular regulatory areas and the orders will, by their very nature, have more flexibility at a later date. It will be critical to the success of the scheme to ensure these exemptions are in place before the first primary authority partnership is registered. I can assure the Committee that those orders will be laid in good time. We will consult on them as they are drawn up.
The principle behind the noble Viscount’s amendment, which would still allow for some exemptions to be made by order—an important factor—and specify some of the grounds on which it should be made, is sensible. He may or may not be surprised by my saying this but, in spite of his great drafting experience over many years, the precise wording will need to be considered and therefore I hope he will understand if we need to take the matter away. Without making any promises at all—the noble Viscount has heard that phrase before—I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and the noble Viscount not to press his so that we can return to the matter on Report. We want to give more thought to this matter. The speeches that we have heard today have strengthened us in the view that we will need to consider the issue more carefully before rushing into something that may have weaknesses.
The noble Viscount asked about the need to consult on all the exemptions, which were all suggested through the consultation process. Of course, we will consult fully on the draft order with enforcers and consumers, who are an important part of this issue. I hope that noble Lords who have spoken in the debate will be pleased that we are to take the matter away for consideration.
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 28 January 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c252-4GC
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:30:06 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_439954
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_439954
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_439954