Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 37: 37: Clause 9, page 5, line 13, at end insert— ““( ) LBRO must give advice to Ministers of the Crown on any legislative proposal for new regulations made by Ministers or by the European Union and such advice shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”” The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 40. These two amendments require the LBRO to advise Ministers of the Crown and Welsh Ministers about new regulations which are proposed by central government or, for that matter, the European authorities. The inspiration for the amendment comes from the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, who said at Second Reading: "““The local LBRO must also be empowered to challenge regulatory proposals from the Government before they are introduced, and be satisfied that such proposals are effective and necessary. Indeed, I hope that the LBRO spends at least as much time taking issue with the regulatory proposals from central government as it does improving the … performance of local authorities””.—[Official Report, 28/11/07; col. 1265.]" He invited the noble Lord, Lord Jones, to comment at the end of Second Reading but unfortunately the noble Lord was not able to do so, or at least did not have the time. We do not have the advantage of the noble Lord, Lord Jones, but we do have his representative on the ground in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Bach. It is a little difficult to know whether we are dealing with the organ grinder or the organ builder. I do not use the usual analogy. I suspect that we have the organ builder with us rather than the organ grinder, so perhaps he can comment on this. I am conscious of what was said earlier about the possibility of overloading the LBRO. Perhaps these amendments in their full form, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, mentioned in his speech at Second Reading, would overload the LBRO as it is currently envisaged. However, I am also conscious of the fact that, under Clause 9(1)(b), the LBRO may give advice to a Minister of the Crown on ““the effectiveness of legislation””. If it chooses to do so, that would go a long way towards achieving the results sought in these amendments. Indeed, the LBRO can be required by Ministers to give advice on various matters, including presumably on future as well as existing legislation. To my mind, it is important that the LBRO has an eye to pending and future legislation that adds to the regulatory burden. If it does not do that, as well as looking at how existing legislation is being implemented on the ground by local authorities, it will not be as effective as we all want it to be in improving the regulatory environment. I admit that the two amendments are expressed in very complete and decisive terms. A few moments ago, we discussed the difference between guidance and direction but, knowing that the Companion to the Standing Orders of your Lordships’ House is expressed in terms of guidance but always taken as holy writ, one can lead to the other from time to time. The most important element of these amendments is that the LBRO must look to pending and future legislation as well as to the existing regulatory environment; it should not concentrate solely on the latter. Unfortunately, in the helpful guide to the Bill available in the Printed Paper Office, I have not been able to find any reference to the need for the LBRO to look at current proposals, so that adds force to my wish to at least try these amendments on the Minister. I beg to move.