Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 97 and 98. The purpose of these probing amendments is to cater for a situation in which what I might call a rogue authority disregards an inspection plan which is properly set up by a primary authority and registered with the LBRO. Clause 28 deals with one of the key functions of the primary authority, which is to agree a plan of inspections with the business. The plan will reflect the nature of the business, a careful assessment of the risks, an understanding by the primary authority of the due diligence and other company procedures, and its overall assessment of the business. The inspection plan is then to be registered with the LBRO. The objective is to overcome problems that have been identified with local enforcing authorities ignoring agreements made with home and lead authorities and insisting on local arrangements that are unique to their area, without any specific justification. If businesses and primary authorities are to go to the expense of drawing up agreed inspection plans, it is not reasonable for local enforcing authorities to be able to disregard those plans without having to justify that to the primary authority and the LBRO and those bodies being able to overrule the enforcing authority. As the Bill stands, the enforcing authority merely has to advise the primary authority under Clause 28(8) and (9), and that seems to be the end of the matter. One would hope that that would never happen but, if it did, I cannot see how the primary authority concept would survive without amendment along these lines.