I rise to support these amendments. We think that the schemes established in the Bill will create an uncomfortable legal position. Rather like the image described by my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley when he spoke in an earlier Committee of sitting of a patchwork high street with every shop having a different primary authority, so, as my noble friend Lord Goodlad tells us, the Bill’s outcome will be a patchwork of statutory instruments made by Ministers to empower some regulators to impose sanctions in relation to some offences. That sounds pretty confusing. The Bill will create a situation in which Ministers may at a later time suspend a regulator’s power to impose sanctions by issuing directions. They may then revoke that suspension by further directions. The Bill needs to set out clearly which institutions, courts or regulators may exercise sanctioning powers in relation to criminal offences, and which may not.
Given the views of the Select Committee on the Constitution, we fear that the arrangements in the Bill are at risk of being too complex and inaccessible to conform to one of the most basic requirements of the rule of law; that is, that all laws should be reasonably certain and accessible. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord De Mauley
(Conservative)
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 c594-5GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:32:10 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443521
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443521
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443521