Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 75: 75: Clause 26, page 11, line 16, leave out from ““is”” to ““it”” in line 17 and insert ““in all circumstances inappropriate and that compliance could be secured by a different, more appropriate, enforcement action,”” The noble Lord said: As I understand it, the capacity of the primary authority to intervene to deter overenthusiastic enforcement action is limited to cases where that proposed enforcement action is inconsistent with advice or guidance previously given by the primary authority. The amendment probes whether it is possible to open up the options available to the primary authority and to introduce an element of flexibility, while still ensuring that the objective of securing compliance is met. The Government gave a commitment in their manifesto for business that multi-site businesses would in future have to deal only with a single enforcement authority. That was one of the basic justifications for the proposed CTSA and the LBRO proposal that succeeded it. The Hampton review found that one of the biggest problems facing businesses was inconsistent advice and enforcement by difficult local authorities. National businesses operate on national plans, while local authorities operate on a local basis. The voluntary home and lead authority system was developed to mitigate that problem, but I understand that the Government felt that there were instances where local authorities ignored the advice of the home or lead authority for no valid reason, hence the decision to place the arrangement on a statutory basis, with the primary authority taking the lead role. At its best, the home and lead authority system works well because it is flexible and based on a wide range of advice, both formal and informal. By strictly limiting the capacity of the primary authority under the proposed statutory system to cases where the proposed enforcement action is inconsistent with advice or guidance previously given by the primary authority, we feel that the Government are restricting its ability to act in order to lighten the touch of enforcement. This essentially requires the primary authority to provide formal advice, to ignore informal advice and contacts, to ignore other factors such as its knowledge of the company and its procedures, and the likelihood that in the future it would act on informal enforcement. I suggest that this will confuse the relationship and increase the administrative burden because businesses will be more likely to require all advice and guidance to be written down so that it can be relied upon, and in turn primary authorities will be less willing to provide informal advice without going through a formal process. The amendment would open up the options available to the primary authority and introduce flexibility, while still ensuring that the objective of securing compliance is met. This would return the character of the relationship to that which was originally promised and intended. I beg to move.