Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 31: 31: Clause 6, page 4, line 5, after ““giving”” insert ““, varying or revoking”” The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 32 and 40E. These amendments also refer to the provisions relating to guidance, and no doubt later we will discuss what the Minister termed ““advice”” which is of a lower order of requirement on the LBRO. But here we are in the realms of guidance, which has a lot of both formality and force. Amendment No. 31 seeks to amend Clause 6(4) by ensuring that the LBRO must consult those listed not only before giving guidance, but before varying or revoking it. I am grateful to the Bill team for pointing out that before the LBRO varies or revokes guidance, or in doing so, under Clause 6(6) it issues further guidance. If it is going to do so, then before that it would have to consult on it. So in a sense there is a revolving door here. Every time it wants to change what it has issued, there has to be another consultation. That is quite right, but it led me to wonder whether, if it simply wanted to withdraw guidance and not issue any substitution, it has to issue guidance that is no guidance, or says, ““This guidance does not amount to anything”” for there to be the consultation that the clause requires? That seems a bit of nonsense. I am sure that, in the real world, these things would normally happen quite sensibly, but we are trying to make the legislation as close to foolproof as we can. Amendment No. 32 is to the list of those to be consulted which, as stated, will be those whose activities are the subject of regulation and, "““such other persons as LBRO considers appropriate””." No doubt this will be an opportunity for the Minister to reassure the Committee about the LBRO taking everyone sensible into account, which must include local authorities carrying out a function. Amendment No. 40E is about extending consultation to local authorities, consumers and business. I am aware that the two do not lie particularly easily together. Amendment No. 40E was tabled quite late at the request of the National Consumer Council. I wanted it to see the response to its way of dealing with the matter. Of course, sometimes there may be conflict between the interests of the consumer and of business, in particular. It is right to suggest that both should be involved in a similar fashion in the construction of guidance. I beg to move.