Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 79: 79: Schedule 4, page 44, line 25, leave out ““with the consent of LBRO”” The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 and 83 to 86, but there are fewer points to be made than that list might indicate. Amendments Nos. 79, 83 and 85 are on the same point. We are told that if the primary authority directs the enforcing authority, the latter may, with the consent of the LBRO, refer the proposed enforcement action to the LBRO. That seems to add an unnecessary stage. One can cut out the stage of the enforcing authority having to go to the LBRO to ask, ““Do you consent to our doing something?””, because either the enforcing authority can check informally or the LBRO will simply say, when the enforcing authority goes to it, ““We don’t want to deal with it””, and it will not. The provision seems to add a bit of extra bureaucracy. It is not a great point, but it intrigued me. Amendments Nos. 80, 84 and 86 relate to paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 4, which states that, when a reference to the LBRO is made, it can confirm or revoke the direction. I wondered whether something had been left out here. The use of the word ““revoke”” is rather curious when it is not its own direction, but if the LBRO says, ““Sort it out between you””, for example, and declines to deal with the matter, is that catered for? My last point, which relates to Amendment No. 81, is one that I have been over several times, and I am grateful to the Bill team, to whom I went for advice. I see some smiles from behind the Minister. Under paragraph 1(2)(a) of Schedule 4, the LBRO must be satisfied with the matters set out in sub-paragraph (3) in order to confirm the direction. This is a direction by the primary authority directing an enforcing authority. I believe that the direction is not necessary if the enforcing authority agrees with the primary authority. That is the basis on which I have worked. Under sub-paragraph (3), the conditions are that the advice or guidance given by the primary authority must be correct and properly given but—or perhaps ““and””—the enforcement action must be inconsistent with the advice or guidance. The Bill team’s answer is that the essential question before the LBRO is: should the enforcement action be stopped? However, I read paragraph 1(2)(a) as being about the enforcement action proceeding and not being blocked. The same terminology is used in paragraphs 2 and 3 but in different situations. I am genuinely puzzled by this provision and am not carried along by the arguments that I have heard on this. Drafting can often be very difficult but that is what we are here for. I beg to move.