Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 13: 13: Clause 4, page 3, line 10, leave out ““(including”” and insert ““(but may not make”” The noble Baroness said: I speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 28. Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 all amend the same sentence in Clause 4(5), which would say that an order under subsection (4) may make different provision for different purposes, but may not make different provision in relation to different local authorities which fall within the same paragraphs of Clause 3(1)—which are, in other words, within the same category of local authority. Now I look at Clause 4(5) and wonder about, "““different provision for different purposes””." Although it is not part of the amendment, can the Minister explain what that means? It is so familiar a term that I did not pause on it when I was considering amendments for the Bill. What struck me was that, in a Bill that seeks to reduce confusion and apply a standard regime, this subsection has the potential to increase confusion because it would apply differences. Amendment No. 15 is probably unnecessary because any legislation will make clear which type, sphere or level of local authority is to undertake the regulation. The Minister may be able to confirm that. Amendment No. 28 to Clause 6, which provides that guidance given to one or more local authorities, "““shall be given to all local authorities which fall within the same paragraph of section 3(1)””," is again a matter of consistency. I appreciate that Members of the Committee may be struggling to see where all that comes in. I would be if I were reading somebody else’s amendments, but the point about consistency underlies all of this. I beg to move.