My Lords, I must disagree. The procedure is not as described by the noble and learned Lord, and I am very happy to go through it in detail when we meet. There are many steps in between which have been missed by the noble and learned Lord, including the notice of intent, the ability to make representations, the ability to appeal subsequently, and the fact that at the start the regulator needs a criminal standard of proof. I understand the superficial and compelling description of something for a good soundbite but, frankly, that does not reflect the reality. As the noble and learned Lord seems to have a somewhat ideological objection to the entire Bill, perhaps we could discuss this in the meeting that we agreed to have.
In the mean time, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that there are sufficient safeguards for the purposes of his Amendment No. 69, and that allowing a business to choose which punishment method it is subject to is not appropriate. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord that there are sufficient safeguards, at least for the purposes of Amendment No. 69, and that he will feel able not to press the amendment.
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Vadera
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 31 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
700 c825 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:13:33 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_459406
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_459406
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_459406