The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
49 Review of enforcement notices
(1) A person to whom an enforcement notice is issued under this Part may require the Secretary of State to review the decision to issue the notice. (2) A request for a review under paragraph (1) must be made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is issued. (3) The grounds for a review under paragraph (1) are— (a) that the decision was based on an error of fact; (b) that the decision was wrong in law; (c) in the case of a compliance notice or a stop notice, that any steps specified in the notice were unreasonable; (d) in the case of a stop notice, that the person to whom it was issued had not committed the relevant breach and would not have done so had the notice not been issued; (e) in the case of a monetary penalty notice, that the amount of the penalty was unreasonable; (f) that the decision was unreasonable for any other reason. (4) The Secretary of State may give due regard to any additional information or evidence provided by the person making the request under paragraph (1). (5) On review of an enforcement notice, the Secretary of State must— (a) decide whether to uphold, vary or revoke the notice; (b) give notice to the person who requested the review, within a reasonable period, setting out— (i) the Secretary of State’s decision, and (ii) the reasons for that decision; (c) where relevant, inform the person of the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. (6) The Secretary of State may suspend the operation of any compliance notice or monetary penalty notice to which the review relates pending the outcome of the review.
49 Review of enforcement notices
(1) A person to whom an enforcement notice is issued under this Part may require the Secretary of State to review the decision to issue the notice. (2) A request for a review under paragraph (1) must be made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is issued. (3) The grounds for a review under paragraph (1) are— (a) that the decision was based on an error of fact; (b) that the decision was wrong in law; (c) in the case of a compliance notice or a stop notice, that any steps specified in the notice were unreasonable; (d) in the case of a stop notice, that the person to whom it was issued had not committed the relevant breach and would not have done so had the notice not been issued; (e) in the case of a monetary penalty notice, that the amount of the penalty was unreasonable; (f) that the decision was unreasonable for any other reason. (4) The Secretary of State may give due regard to any additional information or evidence provided by the person making the request under paragraph (1). (5) On review of an enforcement notice, the Secretary of State must— (a) decide whether to uphold, vary or revoke the notice; (b) give notice to the person who requested the review, within a reasonable period, setting out— (i) the Secretary of State’s decision, and (ii) the reasons for that decision; (c) where relevant, inform the person of the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. (6) The Secretary of State may suspend the operation of any compliance notice or monetary penalty notice to which the review relates pending the outcome of the review.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.