moved Amendment No. 29:
29: Clause 6, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
““(d) may relate to the priorities for the allocation of resources by local authorities in respect of relevant functions.””
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 29, I shall also speak to Clause 11 stand part. A number of amendments tabled in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, are also in this group.
My amendment is about resources. It adds the issue of priority in the allocation of resources to the guidance section and deletes the rather more heavy-handed, as I read them, provisions in Clause 11. Every Bill tends to assume that there are unlimited resources for its own subject matter, but we are talking about a cake where the slice for a particular subject may not be enough to do all that everyone wants. If the LBRO is to have the influence that we have been assuming and welcoming, it should face up to the fact that the slice of cake may not be adequate and advise local authorities on how they should prioritise the resources that are available. Clause 11 provides for enforcement priorities, including resources. It is a rather heavier hand. The Minister may be able to explain the relationship between Clauses 6 and 11 and say whether one has more effect than the other. I beg to move.
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hamwee
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 21 January 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c53GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:33:07 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_436867
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_436867
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_436867