Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

I had not originally thought that I would say anything on this amendment, although I agree with it and the principle behind it. It is worth while going back to something that the Minister said earlier this afternoon. In connection with EU regulations, he said, ““Look here, we cannot possibly be expected to list all the regulations; there were 3,000 in a few months last year. We cannot possibly be expected to list them. There are too many to list in the Bill or even on another piece of paper””. Yet, the trader or businessman is expected to obey all 3,000. Of course, they will not all apply to every trader, I well understand that, but he must make certain which of them do, and that in itself is a burden. Obviously, the trade associations and the other bodies are extremely helpful in that. It is also a tremendous burden on the local authorities. Any individual local authority potentially has to take account of all 3,000 regulations. That was just in the space of some months; I think that the noble Lord said it was January to October. The local authority has got to take account of all of them. This is part of the whole difficulty with all this regulation. We all agree that some regulation is necessary and that particular regulations are necessary, and no doubt all of us who have been in politics for any length of time have called for more regulation from time to time when something has gone wrong. In my previous existence in my constituency I heard, ““There ought to be a law against it””. In every pub in England, someone says once a night, ““There ought to be a law against it””, about something, and MPs pick it up and repeat it. Sometimes they are right—but not all the time—and that is why we have all these regulations. However, the 3,000 in a few months is an enormous number. That is why the principle embodied in this amendment is of the first importance.