Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

I am sorry that Clause 5, and particularly Clause 5(2), is not exciting enough for the noble Viscount, but he should not be too worried that it may repeat words and expressions that he says are widely known as they are also at the very heart of what the Government are trying to do to achieve better regulation. On a couple of occasions already I may have gone on at too great length about what the LBRO is there to do. One of its jobs is to establish greater consistency in the way in which regulation is carried out. Although we praise what local authorities do, there have been unnecessary inconsistencies, and for regulation to be better, it is important to remove as many of those inconsistencies as possible. Under the clause, the LBRO is required to ensure that local authorities exercise their relevant functions effectively—I repeat that now—and in a way that does not give rise to unnecessary burdens and that complies with the five principles of good regulation. I repeat that they have stood the test of time pretty well and are becoming integrated. They featured, as I have said, in Ofcom’s founding legislation and the 2006 Act. Amendments Nos. 24 and 49 would add a further principle to those listed, requiring in Clause 5(2) and in Clause 13(3), to which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, refers, that the LBRO must ensure that, "““regulatory activities should be carried out on the basis of a risk assessment””." Noble Lords will be aware of the task force’s subsequent publication, The Principles of Good Regulation, which expanded on the principles and the best means of implementing them. This covers the issues to which the amendments give rise. The publication states that targeting, for instance, demands that, "““Enforcers should focus primarily on those whose activities give rise to the most serious risks””." I agree that the assessment of risk should be at the heart of regulatory activity, but this is captured by the words ““targeted”” and ““proportionate””, as a targeted and proportionate approach should be based on the assessment of risk. That alone means that we do not need the amendments to Clauses 5 and 13. They are unnecessary because of the inclusion of the principles that I have outlined. Amendment No. 105 would require the LBRO to certify that local authorities that have been awarded the civil sanctioning power in Part 3, which we will come to one day, have been conforming with these principles. The Government have accepted that before a Minister confers the new powers on a regulator, he must be satisfied that the regulator will act in accordance with the principles referred to in the rather dull Clause 5(2). This is set out in Amendment No. 164 in the name of my noble friend Lord Jones of Birmingham after Clause 62. If we come to Part 3 one day, goodness knows when we will come to Amendment No. 164. We will come to it later in proceedings. I hope that what I have said may mean that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.