Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

This may be a convenient moment to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in her approach to Clause 11 and to speak to my Amendments Nos. 40A to 40D and 42A. I entirely agree with the description ““heavy handed””. That is the problem with this clause. The noble Baroness would deal with that if she proposed an amendment to strike the clause out. My proposal is to amend the clause. The principle behind the amendment seems to be that the emphasis throughout the Bill should be on advice and not on instructing or second-guessing local authorities; still less on encouraging them into box-ticking lists. My amendments have two objectives. One is to bring the LBRO and local authorities together in their pursuit of effective ways of achieving better regulation. They should not be in opposition to each other. Each local authority will have its own approach to an experience of regulatory activities, and in that regard I feel rather short of evidence of all this inconsistency, slack behaviour and lack of regard to all the work that has been done to achieve better regulation to date. Each local authority will have been, or can be, persuaded to set priorities. How else can a local authority control its expenditure—another point made by the noble Baroness? The second objective is that if the dialogue between the LBRO and local authorities becomes and remains friendly and positive, both pursuing the same objective, there is no need for the Secretary of State to intervene or to be involved in their programme of continuous improvement. If the Secretary of State is not involved, that enhances the independence of the LBRO, which is quite threatened throughout the Bill by the described relationships between the Secretary of State and the LBRO, which are pretty directional. Hence my amendment would leave out Clause 6(5) to (8) inclusive, thus removing the Secretary of State from the scene.