Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 30: 30: Clause 6, page 4, line 2, at end insert— ““( ) must be given by LBRO if requested without charge.”” The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with Clause 6, which is about guidance to local authorities. Subsection (2) lists a number of areas in which guidance may be given: it may be given to one or more local authorities; it may relate to one or more relevant functions; and it may relate to the exercise of one or more relevant functions. My amendment seeks to add a new paragraph (d) and includes the word ““must””, indicating that it is obligatory, not permissive, as the clause stands. It seems to me that if local authorities are anxious to find out how to exercise their functions and they choose to ask the LBRO, the LBRO should not be able to duck the question. In my other lives, one of the most aggravating issues has been when you go to a regulator and say, ““Look, this is something that we are a bit concerned about. Can you help us to decide whether we should proceed?””, and the regulator says, ““Go ahead, and we’ll decide whether we’re going to take you to court afterwards when you’ve broken a particular regulation””. Local authorities should be able to ask the LBRO for guidance and the LBRO should have to provide it if asked. It should not be able to say, ““This is a bit difficult. We’d like to duck this one””. I added the words ““without charge”” because the other way to shut off difficult inquiries is to say, ““If you want to make the inquiry, it will cost you a lot of money. We’ll charge you for it because it will cost us to prepare this advice””. That is a way of ducking the issue. Therefore, I should like to add an obligatory paragraph (d) to Clause 6(2) whereby, if requested, the LBRO must give guidance to a local authority and cannot charge for doing so. I beg to move.