We are on the whole very happy with the Government’s amendments. They bring some technical changes and correct drafting to make a better and tighter Bill. We applaud these efforts, tempered only by the caveat that there appear to be quite a number of them. Although we are happy to support the Government, we would have preferred a more technically sound beginning.
We shall come back to Clause 88, but I shall talk briefly about Amendments A54 and A55 to Clause 93. We agree that the enforcement authority should be able to modify the amount of variable monetary penalty and, furthermore, that there should be a mechanism for appeal against the amount as well as the penalty. This makes sense in the context of further information about the circumstances and effects of the offence and the condition of the offender. However, these executive powers should not be used as a replacement for criminal prosecution. It is in the courts that the real penalties should be imposed. While it may be quicker and easier to use an effective variable monetary penalty, that should not be allowed to take precedence over criminal prosecution in the courts. Will the Minister assure us that this will not be the case?
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 3 March 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c644-5 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:10:30 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533672
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533672
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533672