Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 10: 10: Clause 4, page 3, line 5, leave out ““or to remove any enactment from it”” The noble Lord said: We are still working our way through Clause 4, ““Relevant function””, and we are looking at another aspect of the issue that we have just discussed. Under Clause 4(4), the Secretary of State has the power to add or to remove items under either Schedule 3 or subsection (3), which is the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This is a probing amendment. I am searching for truth with or without an authoritative list. Schedule 3 is a hugely lengthy list of legislation over four pages. My noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley was particularly interested in the Pedlars Act 1871, which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and I toyed with once over regulatory reform in this Room. I understand the need for the power to add, but I am not quite so clear about the need for deletions. I presume that if one of the Acts in Schedule 3 is repealed, it automatically drops out of the list, as a consequential amendment from the passage of a piece of primary legislation. I have a slight suspicion that if a particular Act is causing trouble to the Government at a future date—I do not mean for the Minister—it might be deleted. One might move to do that because an Act was causing difficulties and problems, and the LBRO was throwing its weight about in a way that was unhelpful and disobliging to the Government of the day. It is not just that this is a big and extensive power. Under subsection (5), there are even greater powers; I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has an amendment for discussion on that. I am looking for reassurance from the Minister about why we need powers of deletion. Addition is fine, but I question the deletion of something that will not have been repealed; as I said, it would just drop away of its own volition. I suppose that those who are of a suspicious turn of mind will think back to what happened with legislation such as the corporate manslaughter Bill, when the Government sought to exclude themselves from the provisions of the Bill, in relation to the police and the Prison Service, which caused quite a controversy. Down the road in the future, a Secretary of State faced with a disobliging LBRO might say, ““I will tell you what we will do. We will delete that provision under the powers I have under Clause 4(4)””. I would be grateful for enlightenment from the Minister. I beg to move.