Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

I support the amendment as it is written, rather than everything that the noble Baroness said in favour of it. A problem with providing the capacity for local authorities to regulate effectively and efficiently—the risk-based approach that we advocate here—is that the number of TSOs, environmental health officers and other inspectors and professionals within local authorities has been squeezed with other priorities. It seems to me that whether local authorities employ such inspectors themselves or whether they subcontract in the way that the noble Baroness suggested, effective operation of regulation by local authorities requires a high level of professional expertise to fulfil the objectives of better regulation and to protect the consumers and the environment and every other area that is protected by the vast list of regulations listed in Schedule 3. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to have some reference to the professionalism of local authorities in the objectives of the LBRO. The argument for setting up the LBRO in the first place was that it should not only improve consistency across local authorities but the quality and capacity of local authorities to regulate. In this area of professionalism I think we need some reference. If the Minister is going to say ““not here”” because this is the same wording that we have used in the 2006 Act, that is fair enough, but where will he refer in the Bill to the professionalism of those on whom the local authorities will rely in delivering this regulatory outcome?