Indeed. I hope that what I have said on the record will go some way towards assuring the noble Lord of that.
Before I sit down, I think that it is important just to back up the fundamental point that we are making about supporting Macrory. I pray in aid rather powerful and interesting bodies. The criminal sub-committee of the Council of Her Majesty’s Circuit Judges states: "““We support the view that a distinction must be drawn between matters of regulation and criminal offending. There is a pressing need to avoid expensive court time being taken up with matters that are better suited to an administrative penalty””."
EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, which I believe the noble Baroness and my noble friend may both be seeing this evening, stated: "““EEF supports the principle of alternative penalties for regulatory offences as a mechanism for reducing demands on court time, speeding up the process of enforcement and sanctioning, and reducing the costs associated with this for business””."
We could not have put it better.
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 February 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c587GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:27:50 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443505
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443505
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443505