Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

My noble friend has given me a very full reply. No doubt it will take me some time with my advisers to consider her reply fully to see what I ought to do at the next stage. I am bound to say at this stage that I was much impressed by the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Bradshaw, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley. One thing that they emphasised was the importance that the regulators see in the independence of Ministers. When there are hints in the drafting of Clause 68 that independence would be prejudiced, the regulators will continue to be concerned, despite the detailed reply of my noble friend. A couple of points that she made struck me. More than once she mentioned that it is for the regulator to determine what constitutes an ““unnecessary burden””. But there will be people out there, businessmen, who think that the way in which a regulator has exercised his powers is burdensome. When the regulator is under a duty that is put in this bold and bald way in Clause 68, it is a matter of concern. I said that Clause 68 as it stands is not based on the model of Section 6 of the Telecommunications Act, despite what the guidance says, because it talks about Ofcom having a duty to ““review”” not ““remove”” unnecessary burdens. That is a different matter. Ofcom in particular will notice the difference. Although assurances from Ministers are often all that a person moving an amendment from whatever part of the Committee can reasonably expect, the assurance of my noble friend that competition powers were not intended to be got at here is all very well; but what is that worth when one of the regulators determines to investigate and there is the possibility of some huge fine involving millions that can be 10 per cent of turnover? The businessman will not be much impressed by an assurance by the Minister on what the clause was intended to mean if he can arguably argue in court that ““unnecessary burdens”” include the unnecessary way in which he has been treated by a competition authority and it is not possible by ministerial assurances for the legislation to be altered or to be interpreted solely in that way when it gets before a court in judicial review proceedings. Even on a preliminary hearing of what my noble friend said—although it is a pleasure to have her here and I am sorry to raise such an unnecessary burden for her—my advisers will not be terribly pleased with her response; but we will look at it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 181 to 190 not moved.] Clause 68 agreed to. Clause 69 [Functions to which section 68 applies]: [Amendment No. 191 not moved.] Clause 69 agreed to. [Amendment No. 191A not moved.] Clause 70 agreed to. Clause 71 [Extent]: