Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 82: 82: Schedule 4, page 45, line 3, leave out paragraph 2 The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 87. I am prepared for teasing because there is inconsistency in some of the amendments that I have tabled. The National Consumer Council asked me to bring forward Amendment No. 82. It wants paragraph 2 omitted because it gives business a pre-emptive right of appeal against proposed enforcement actions by enforcing authorities. I understand that the provision was not in the draft Bill and has not been consulted on. The council describe it as giving a vulnerability to abuse by wealthy companies using lawyers to delay legitimate enforcement action. I have never understood why lawyers should not be used, but they seem to be denigrated in some circumstances. It is not reassured by the safeguard that the LBRO must consent to the reference. The provision does not set out the circumstances in which the LBRO may refuse its consent, and the LBRO may be reluctant to refuse consent if judicial review is threatened. If a company consistently challenges proposed enforcement actions or the authorities have to deal with a series of challenges from many companies, the prospect of protracted legal wrangling is a real deterrent. This is not a point from the NCC, but I add that we must all be familiar with local authorities quite properly having to have regard to the use of their resources when they take any action, or respond to any action by a third party. Sometimes, the costs to be met, rather than the subject, become the main issue. The LBRO may require a regulated person to pay reasonable costs, but that is only permissive. I presume that, if it did not happen, the enforcing authority would be liable for the costs. I turn to Amendment No. 87. The amendment which I thought I had tabled made reference to the period provided for in Clause 26(9), but the amendment which appears in the Marshalled List would insert, "““the relevant period provided for in Section 26(9)(a)’””." That was not my point, but it is interesting. I do not know who thought of it and whether it is a heavy hint from the Public Bill Office. Clause 26(9) provides—we have already touched on the alternatives—for a, "““period of five working days””," or, "““such longer period … as LBRO may direct””," as the relevant period for the purposes of the clause. My amendment was tabled to understand whether I am on the right clause. If the period is not known in advance—I have in mind Clause 26(9)(b), about which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, spoke earlier and which provides for the longer period that the LBRO directs—it has a knock-on effect in the schedule. Even though it is not the amendment which I thought I had tabled, it has become quite interesting. I beg to move.