Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

Until my noble friend Lord Borrie intervened with the novel principle that the Government should be consistent from one year to the next, I was tempted to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The clause seems seriously to overstate risk-based regulation. I am not against targeting or risk-based regulation, but the word ““only”” seems not to provide the kind of protection for consumers and others that my noble friend spelt out earlier. As this is my first intervention in the debate, I suppose I should declare an interest as chair of the National Consumer Council, following in the footsteps of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. The wording was probably wrong in 2006. It does not say ““intervention”” or ““enforcement””, but ““activities””. Unless there is a degree of randomness about inspection, for example, that protection is not achieved. Certainly, for a bulk of resources, the totality of enforcement probably needs to relate to high-risk premises, companies and activities. But ““only”” overstates the risk-based principle; if it is in the 2006 legislation there is nothing I can do about that. But as Clause 5(2)(a), as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, just said, states the generality, why do we not just leave it at that and accept the noble Baroness’s amendment? I do not expect the Minister to agree to this, but perhaps he could have another look at it to see if the risk-based approach to regulation in 2008 could be better expressed, slightly more subtly.