Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

I am grateful to both the noble Lord who moved the amendment, and to my noble friend Lord Borrie for the way in which he hit the nail on the head in identifying the reason why the five regulators have been chosen. Perhaps I may explain the rationale for Clause 12. The five national regulators listed will have frequent contact with the LBRO, because they and the LBRO will issue guidance to local authorities. It is only right that the boundaries between them, which could become confused, should be clarified to avoid any confusion for local authorities. The national regulators’ role, to look out for particular aspects of local authority enforcement, is different from that of the LBRO. The LBRO is designed to bring more co-ordination and strategic thinking to a system that includes both the local authorities and the regulators. There is a risk of overlap, and the memoranda of understanding will set out the basis on which the LBRO and each regulator will operate to remove any risk of, for instance, contradictory guidance being issued. Both regulators and local authorities have welcomed the clarity that this clause will bring to some of the important relationships that the new organisation will need to develop. Other regulators are of course involved, and the LBRO has the power, but not the duty, to enter agreements with any additional regulators under Clause 14. If it is intended that the LBRO should be required to enter MoUs with all regulators, rather than just those mentioned in the Bill, there is a much less resource-intensive way of achieving it through Clause 14. I hope that the noble Lord will see the distinction between those five regulators, whose duty among other things is to give guidance to local authorities, and local authority regulators. A key function of all these regulators is giving guidance to local authorities.