Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 6:15 pm on 17 June 2008.
Pat McFadden
Minister of State (Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) (Employment Relations and Postal Affairs), Member, Labour Party National Executive Committee
The clause ensures that where a business is required to pay a variable monetary penalty, whether alone or in combination with non-monetary discretionary requirements or undertakings, the order made by the Minister must secure that the person may not be prosecuted at a later date for the same incident of regulatory non-compliance. This, again, is because of the principle of freedom from double jeopardy. Variable monetary penalties will be enforced through the civil courts. The Bill, particularly clause 52, to which I referred a little while ago, will ensure that regulators have access to an efficient and streamlined procedure for recovering monetary penalties.
I draw attention to clause 44(3), by virtue of which the restriction does not apply where a non-monetary discretionary requirement is imposed or an undertaking is accepted without the imposition of a variable monetary penalty. In such cases, where the business fails to comply with the sanction—we talked about a business that might have spilt chemicals on parkland and so on—it may be prosecuted at a later date for the original offence. The nature of non-monetary requirements is not as punitive, and therefore we believe that it is fair to allow regulators to pursue a prosecution in such cases, where a business fails to comply with the original requirement to restore the situation. Subsection (4) allows for the period within which criminal prosecutions may be instituted to be extended.
