Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

These amendments are extraordinarily wide in their scope. One of the examples just given by the noble Lord—the Highways Agency—is not even listed in Schedule 5. If all the regulators listed in Schedule 5 were added here, there would be a considerable increase in the work of obtaining memoranda of understanding as required by Clause 12. There is of course a problem of local authorities receiving mixed messages from central government, which is why there is a mention of memoranda of understanding here at all. The LBRO is a non-departmental agency of central government; so are the other regulators listed here and those in Schedule 5. Having some memoranda of understanding is vitally important: it helps to improve the consistency of messages coming through to local authorities from central government. However, the LBRO, as has already been said in debates this afternoon, is a small organisation. It must focus its efforts. Subject to correction from the Minister, I understand that these five specific regulators—not 30-plus, or whatever—are listed in Clause 12 because they have the greatest amount of day-to-day contact and interaction with local authorities. Many of the others in Schedule 5 do not. The Office of Fair Trading was specifically mentioned, the central regulator which I headed at one time. It then had and today has almost constant day-today contact with trading standards departments of local authorities up and down the country on individual cases involving a whole lot of different legislation. The reason that the Food Standards Agency and the Health and Safety Executive are listed among the five is that they, too, are central bodies that have almost constant contact. Therefore, it is important that each of those bodies has an understanding with the LBRO so that they do not tread on one another’s feet when they are dealing and interacting with local authorities. It is most desirable that there should be a list, but it should surely be limited. Where I shared the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in moving the amendment was in his thinking that if that list is finite forever, it might not be sufficient. In other words, it might be desirable if, let us say, some power was had by the Secretary of State to add to that list if evidence showed that, this year, next year or in 10 years, some other agency ought to be added to that list.