Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

Clause 4 defines the local authority functions that are within the scope of Part 1 of the Bill. These functions fall into four broad categories of local authority regulatory activity: first, trading standards; secondly, environmental health; thirdly, entertainment licensing; and, finally, fire and rescue. In order to capture the functions falling within these categories with sufficient certainty, ““relevant function”” has been defined by reference to the list of enactments in Schedule 3. As we discussed in the previous group, in view of the complexity and volume of secondary legislation made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, special provision has been made for this by reference to the list of subject matters given at Clause 4(3). Clause 4(4) provides that the Secretary of State may by order—that is, by affirmative order, for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, reminded us of in the previous debate—add or remove enactments from Schedule 3 and add or remove a subject matter from subsection (3). From the Government’s point of view, where a Secretary of State has to do that through an affirmative order, there is—I hope, in particular, that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will agree—a safeguard as far as any Secretary of State behaving completely wilfully is concerned. I think that I am right in saying that one of the government amendments that we will come to removes one of the items in Schedule 3. Sometimes these items no longer apply and have to be removed from the list. I have not yet heard a better way of doing it, which is both practical and proper, than by an order that has to be agreed under the affirmative procedure. While there is currently no intention to extend or reduce the scope of Part 1, this power provides the flexibility needed for appropriate changes to be made without the need for primary legislation, which I argue would be an absurd course to have to take. The power also ensures that repealed legislation can be removed from Schedule 3 quickly and efficiently. Our belief is that the provisions in Clause 4 for removal are an essential part of this process if the scope of Part 1 is to remain accurate and up to date, as it is important that it should. Amendment No. 12 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require the Secretary of State to consult before laying such an order changing the LBRO’s legislative scope. Who can be but sympathetic to the intentions behind such an amendment? The noble Baroness will know that the Government’s code of practice sets a high standard for consultation relating to any new area of policy development. That is important for a number of reasons, not least the interests of better regulation. As Members of the Committee may be aware, the Government have recently reviewed their processes of consultation and will be revising their code of practice shortly. I assure the Committee that any use of the order-making powers in Clause 4 to change the LBRO’s scope would be subject to full and proper consultation as well, of course, as the parliamentary process of the affirmative resolution procedure. Again, an explicit statutory requirement to do that is unnecessary in this case.