Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, is interesting, but he has recognised in his own speech its negative aspects. The word ““overload”” is simple enough but it means a great deal. The Minister has spoken of the LBRO as a small authority, so it is not appropriate to overload it with responsibilities. On the wording of the amendment, the use of the term ““must”” rather than ““may””, which is used in Clause 9(1), is disturbing. As he quoted it, Clause 9(1) gives the LBRO the role of advising on the, "““effectiveness of legislation relating to the exercise by local authorities in England or Wales of their relevant functions””." The noble Lord will know that this limits the LBRO’s responsibilities concerning how it chooses to give advice. It also limits regulatory matters on which it would advise to ““relevant functions””, which harks back to Clause 4. The noble Lord’s amendment seems to suggest that the new office must give advice on any legislative proposals from Europe or from Ministers about any regulations, not just those concerned with ““relevant functions””. If the LBRO had to do that, I am not sure that it would have much time to do its essential work of co-ordinating and ensuring greater consistency between local authorities. Clearly, the noble Lord has a case for saying that someone should be doing that job, including looking at all new legislation to do with regulations or otherwise, wherever it comes from, but the scope of his amendment is surely much too broad.