Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 56: 56: Clause 17, page 7, line 30, leave out ““may”” and insert ““shall, when the objective of LBRO has been achieved,”” The noble Lord said: Clause 17 brings us on to the power to dissolve the LBRO. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham, claimed correctly that the LBRO was different from a quango because he had never known a quango, at its inception, to allow for its own dissolution when the objectives have been achieved. That is an interesting point. I do not know of a quango that has been dissolved in this way. I think he is correct that it is an unprecedented clause, and no less welcome for that. However, the phrase ““when the objectives have been achieved”” interests me. It turns up on page 8 of the guide to the Bill: "““LBRO will achieve its objectives and at such a point it should be dissolved. Provision is made in the Bill for this eventuality””." The word ““eventuality”” has a rather distant feel to it, but nevertheless I want to press the Minister a little on what is meant by when the LBRO’s objectives have been achieved. We would all love to reach the position where the regulations we are referring to in the Bill are being perfectly implemented in an even manner and in line with best practice all over the country so that the LBRO has worked itself out of a job in that respect. But what about the ““primary authority”” business that we have not yet reached in Part 2? Is that going to fold up at some point because regulation is so even across the country that it can be abolished? I am glad that the Minister thinks that this objective is within sight and therefore can be provided for, but what did the noble Lord, Lord Jones, have in mind when he said that the objective was about to be achieved and we can dissolve all this? I beg to move.