Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right to say that the role of Professor Macrory lies behind the various proposals in the Bill. He was an academic brought in to discuss various possibilities of alternative sanctions to criminal prosecution. The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right to say that Professor Macrory recognised the merits, over the years, of criminal prosecution. And of course, the noble and learned Lord said just now, and at greater length earlier, that it has always been the case—he quoted the former Attorney-General Shawcross, who held the same office as the noble and learned Lord—that there is discretion as to whether a prosecution should be brought. However, surely what the Government had to do on receiving the Macrory proposals was to put them into legislative form—it was not Macrory’s job to do that—and to lay out a number of alternative ways of dealing with some problems that might not deserve criminal prosecution and all that that means in terms of the stigma and procedure involved. The Government, since they first introduced the Bill, including in the amendments we are discussing, have been prepared to make amendments—some of them as a result of points made in this House and Grand Committee. Surely, it is perfectly understood by everyone, including the Government that the role of Macrory was different from that of the Government in producing a detailed Bill. Unlike Ministers and their officials, Macrory does not have to go through the procedure of considering amendments and carefully seeing whether some of them can be accepted. They are desirable improvements, but I fear that sometimes the noble and learned Lord here is so resolutely against the whole idea of providing alternative possibilities to criminal prosecution that he will not even consider the possibility—and he may say so again when we consider amendments to come—that tribunals, despite in many cases being more expert and knowledgeable on a subject than lay magistrates, are a better place for appeals. I understand that noble and learned Lord is resolutely against the Bill, but it is not really necessary to produce one amendment after another in order to demonstrate that.