Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

The amendment would transform the way in which the LBRO operated. Clause 6 sets out its function of giving guidance to which local authorities must have regard. Guidance can be issued to one or more local authorities, in relation to one or more relevant regulatory functions and, where necessary, in relation to particular cases. The subject matter of any such guidance is rightly a matter for the LBRO’s discretion. In practice, we would expect the LBRO to feel able to give advice to businesses and local authorities on an ad hoc basis where this would be helpful. This amendment would require the LBRO to give guidance on request. We see two risks here, both of them quite serious. First, the LBRO would quickly become completely overloaded with requests for guidance. I emphasise that it has always been our intention that the LBRO should not be a huge organisation, but a compact one. Secondly, even though there is a cost element in the noble Lord’s amendment, we still think that vexatious use could easily be made of this process. A business might delay effective enforcement action by calling in the LBRO. The LBRO’s responsiveness to topical issues in regulatory enforcement by local authorities will of course be critical. Perhaps I may add that if the LBRO is asked for guidance and it refuses quite unreasonably to do so, its refusal could be challenged by way of judicial review. Whether such an application is successful would depend on the level of unreasonableness, but we think that we have this right. The amendment would open the door too wide.