Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 9:15 am on 19 June 2008.
Mark Prisk
Shadow Minister (Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform)
I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in Clause 48, page 24, line 15, at end insert ‘and any subsequent appeal.’.
The amendment would improve the current wording of subsection (1) of the clause, which is about compensation in relation to stop notices. Subsection (1) states:
“Provision under section 46 conferring power on a regulator to serve a stop notice on a person must include provision for the regulator to compensate the person for loss suffered as the result of the service of the notice.”
We want to insert at the end of that subsection the phrase, “and any subsequent appeal”.
The provision is designed principally to enable small businesses in particular to appeal without fear that they will not be able to recover costs simply because they wanted to challenge the notice in the first place. The Minister agreed in previous debates that no one in the relevant circumstances should be deterred from making representations or appealing—knowing that they would then be out of pocket. It is an important principle, and the Minister agreed to it in a previous debate. I do not want to make this a long debate, so I simply ask the Minister whether he now accepts that principle, and if so, whether he will accept the amendment. It is fair that there should be no circumstances in which someone who wishes to make an appeal is deterred by the fact that they will be out of pocket as a result.
Pat McFadden
Minister of State (Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) (Employment Relations and Postal Affairs), Member, Labour Party National Executive Committee
I am happy to confirm our earlier exchange about accepting the principle that the hon. Gentleman outlined. I can also give him the good news that the Amendment is unnecessary because the situation that he is talking about is covered. As he rightly said, the Clause includes provision for the regulator to compensate a person for losses suffered as a result of the service of the notice. That would include any period during an appeal when the notice was still in force. I understand the sentiments behind what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do in the amendment, but the clause requires the regulator to put in place a scheme to compensate a person for a loss suffered as a result of the service of the notice. I am happy to confirm that that would include ongoing losses suffered during an appeal when the notice was still in force. The amendment would therefore add nothing to the arrangements covered in the Bill.
Mark Prisk
Shadow Minister (Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform)
I am fascinated. At least two lawyers from different organisations told me that there was a significant omission in the Bill and that it was important to have a provision to deal with that. In response to their comments, I felt that it was important to table the Amendment. However, if the Minister is happy to confirm firmly on the record that there is a provision in the law, we have scored a goal without even starting the game. I am very happy if that is the case, not least because the Minister’s words are now firmly on the record. Although I suspect that we would all like the opportunity to divide the Committee to ensure that the issue is dealt with, there is no need. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
