Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 9: 9: Clause 4, page 3, line 3, at end insert ““and specifically referred to in an order made by the Secretary of State subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament”” The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 9 is grouped with my Amendment No. 62, which is consequential, and with government Amendment No. 16, which I was glad to see. Relevant functions relate to relevant enactments, which are those specified in the long schedule, Schedule 3, or enactments to which subsection (3) applies, which relates to Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and eight topic areas. I hope that the Minister will not be shocked—I do not think that he is that shockable—if I say that I have not followed through every single reference in Schedule 3, but at least Schedule 3 has them so that I and others will know where to refer to. The enactments referred to in Clause 4(3) are not listed in detail. I said to one of the organisations that will be concerned with the implementation of the Bill that I was concerned about that. The response was, ““Yes, we are concerned in case anything is left out””. I said that my concern was whether there was more in here than I really understood. That relates to the lack of an authoritative list of the regulatory powers at issue here. The amendment dealing with Clause 4(3) is perhaps even more fundamental in that we are asked to agree that anything that falls into those topic areas falls within the Bill. I have had some exchange with the Bill team on this, for which I am grateful, but the team’s answer was that listing all the regulations would be impractical. I simply do not think that that is good enough. We are making law and, regardless of whether it is impractical, tough or difficult to do, to my mind it still has to be done. If it is impractical for those in the department, is it practical for those who are outside the department who will have to implement all this? Should they be required to make their own assessment on whether a particular regulation is covered? My amendment has two objectives: one is about clarity and requiring enactments to be listed in an order from the Secretary of State; the second is to give Parliament an opportunity to say no. If I am told that there is nothing, for instance, about animal welfare under the European Communities Act 1972 that will be outside a local authority’s regulatory aegis, I have to accept it, but I am not comfortable with it. Government Amendment No. 16 deals with both issues. I am glad that the point, to some extent, is dealt with. It says: "““The Secretary of State may by order determine whether … an enactment””," is under the 1972 Act. In legislative speak, does that mean that the Secretary of State ““shall”” or, in common parlance, ““may but equally may not””? I cannot claim that the Government have responded to my amendment; I am well aware that the Government have responded to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. How life will be for those affected by this new raft of legislation needs to be dealt with carefully. I beg to move.