Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

I was not sure what was happening here, but now that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has explained about the second amendment in the group, I feel safer to speak to the first. I support the amendment, which would leave out paragraph 2 of Schedule 4. As noble Lords will be aware, paragraph 1 allows the enforcing authority to appeal to the LBRO if it is directed by the primary authority not to take enforcement action. That allows the LBRO effectively to arbitrate if there is a disagreement. Paragraph 3 allows the primary authority to ask the LBRO to decide on a proposed enforcement action if it feels unable to do so. This is appropriate if there is uncertainty. Paragraph 2 is not appropriate. It allows the regulated person to ask the LBRO to intervene when the enforcing authority and the primary authority agree on a course of action but the regulated person does not. This would seem to frustrate the normal mechanism of enforcement by allowing an opportunity to appeal to the LBRO prior to other opportunities that are dependent on the sanction; for example, a court hearing that determines the right or wrong. The danger is that the LBRO can decide not to decide, but in coming to that decision, it will have had to consider the facts of a given situation, which would use up resources best employed on other aspects. Removing this paragraph from the Bill would remove the ability of a regulated person to make a pre-emptive appeal to the LBRO against a decision on which the enforcing authority and primary authority agreed and therefore to frustrate the enforcement process. Such an amendment would be crucial to the effective and efficient implementation of the overall design of the Bill.