Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 139: 139: Clause 41, page 17, line 24, at end insert— ““( ) where the person on whom the notice is to be served has registered a primary authority, that notice must be served through the primary authority on such person as shall be registered with the primary authority as competent to receive such notices,”” The noble Lord said: The amendments that I propose to Clause 41 raise the same questions in the context of the discretionary procedure as I raised when we debated my amendments to Clause 38 in the context of the fixed penalty regime. They go to the issue of multisite businesses, to the need for independence and to an obligation on the enforcer to prove guilt rather than this rather more unusual need to prove innocence. We understand that the discretionary procedure is to be used for a higher level of regulatory non-compliance than fixed penalties are. While the Minister may therefore give similar responses to those that he gave to my analogous amendments in respect of fixed penalties, does he not accept that the need for safeguards—for example, allowing oral representations and providing for some level of independent referral—is even higher where the penalty can be higher? I noted the Minister’s objection to my phrase ““independent person”” when we debated my Amendment No. 126, as I did his objection to the phrase ““independent judicial person”” in response to Amendment No. 120 in the name of my noble friend Lord Cope. I do not wish to be pedantic about the wording—I am sure that the Government can do better than I can—but we are even more concerned in the area of discretionary penalties about a lack of flexibility and independence in the appeal process than we were in the fixed penalty environment. I move this amendment to allow the Minister to respond. I beg to move.