Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 20: 20: Clause 5, page 3, line 29, at end insert— ““(positively and proactively);”” The noble Lord said: This is a further look at the way in which the objectives relate to the general functions. Just as I have confused the Committee by allowing Amendment No. 19 to be degrouped, this amendment should not be in brackets—I have had a run of bad luck— but should be a new paragraph (b) in Clause 5(1). I apologise to the Committee for that lack of clarity. I do not want to bore the Committee or the Minister, but going back to our regulators, I remember that the Minister said that the Bill was not about the code, and he is quite right. I quoted: "““This code supports the Government’s better regulation agenda””," of which this is another part. This is running in parallel. I do not think that he should discount the code, particularly given that we are going to be discussing relationships between the LBRO and other regulators under Clause 12 in a few minutes—or a few hours. I seek to insert the requirement for general functions to be carried out ““positively and proactively””. Why have I chosen those words? Perhaps I can go back to paragraph 1.3 of the code: "““The code stresses the need for regulators to adopt a positive and proactive approach towards ensuring compliance by helping and encouraging regulated entities to understand and meet regulatory requirements more easily; and responding proportionately to regulatory breaches””." It seems to me that if we are trying to create a cohesive approach to this area, and accepting the point that a balance needs to be struck, we should not pick and choose the bits that should be in the LBRO/local authority ambit. We really want to find a way to ensure that innovation is not penalised. Very often, innovation can be penalised. Innovation, to regulators and others can be dangerous, because it represents risk. What if it goes wrong? Sometimes competitors may add to the pressure against an innovation because they see it as a competitive threat. We need to think about a positive aspect to this area, which the Government recognise in the Regulators’ Compliance Code and which should also be reflected in the Bill. It is no good just being a dead hand. We need a positive approach. I beg to move.