Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

As is my noble friend Lord Borrie. I am surprised that they have shown such restraint when it was suggested that that organisation was somehow not bothered about how local government trading standards officers conducted their business. They have the best interests of local government at heart and they show that by supporting Clause 7, with all its safeguards. It has been a long time since the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, moved Amendment No. 34. Our attention has been drawn to it because it has support from other noble Lords and we understand the intention behind it. Clause 7(6) requires the LBRO to publish directions that it issues under Clause 7 in such a manner as it considers appropriate. Clause 7(6) does not explicitly state that the LBRO must publish its directions in such a manner as to ensure that those affected are informed; its general duties as a statutory corporation require it to do this. In particular, it is under a general public duty not to carry out its duties or functions irrationally. Frankly, if it were to issue a direction and not inform those that it affected, the direction would be likely to be struck out in any judicial review challenge. There could hardly be a greater irrationality than for the LBRO not to inform those affected. On balance, we feel that, although very well intentioned, the noble Lord’s amendment is not necessary. The accusation is that Clause 7 is all about centralism. We make no apologies for responding appropriately to the Hampton report, but it may interest the Committee that when Hampton proposed the Consumer and Trading Standards Agency, he envisaged it being a large non-departmental public body with powers comparable to the Food Standards Agency, which would have given the LBRO a detailed audit function and the right to take over the management of particular local services on direction by the Secretary of State. That is much more than what we propose in the Bill. Hampton went further than us. We have modified Hampton to try to meet criticisms that the Bill is just about centralism. Noble Lords should accept that this is a distinctive area of policy that calls for a distinctive sectoral solution. There is too much complexity in the way in which regulations are imposed and enforced. Frequently, enforcement is a very low priority for local authorities. It is absolutely right that enforcement should belong with the experts at local level, but their work has national implications. The LBRO exists to improve co-ordination. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether there is a duty to consult under Clause 7(4). The answer is that there is.