Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 78: 78: Clause 26, page 12, line 3, leave out paragraph (b) The noble Lord said: The amendment is concerned with the definition of ““relevant period”” in Clause 26(4) as regards restrictions on the power of the enforcing authority to take enforcement action. The ““relevant period”” is described in subsection (9)(a) as, primarily, five days or, in subsection (9)(b), "““such longer period beginning with that day as LBRO may direct””." I wanted to probe the Government’s thinking on this. I quite understand the arguments for flexibility and that five working days is a short period, but, equally, a longstop with no end date at all seems to present dangers of an opposing sort. Some degree of speed is important in any better regulatory environment. That is particularly true when dealing with smaller or small firms. Such firms may know of an impending case hanging over them. The enforcing authority may not be ready to proceed and asks for a time delay, which it is given. This could go on for a long time. Local authorities are not always crisp and brisk in how they proceed and a smaller firm could be at a severe disadvantage in commercial terms, because it may become known that enforcement action is pending. That may have cash-flow impacts on the operation of the business and, in an extreme case, on its commercial viability. We could have a situation in which the local authority does not move forward and holds its horses, saying, ““We are not ready yet, we need a few more days or weeks”” and he LBRO says, ““That’s reasonable; carry on””. The threat hangs like the sword of Damocles over the firm. The purpose of my amendment is to strike out paragraph (b). I would fully accept and would feel happier with a longstop of a greater period, but allowing the LBRO to suspend the sword of Damocles for ever is unattractive, unhelpful and does not lead to a better regulatory climate. I beg to move.