Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

I am sure the noble Lord remembered them word for word when he came to write his amendments. I apologise for suggesting that he did not. We have every confidence that the LBRO will achieve its objective of enhancing the delivery of local authority regulatory services. When it has done so, it may well be appropriate for it to be dissolved. The LBRO will be a relatively small body working at the centre of a complex and sometimes disparate regulatory system. It will need time to establish itself, to develop effective working relationships and to use its influence and statutory functions to effectively deliver its objective. We consider it unrealistic to expect the LBRO to achieve all this in only five years. If it were to do so, all the better, but it is not appropriate to place such a time limit on its work. On Amendment No. 56, to limit the LBRO’s dissolution merely to when it has achieved its objectives—the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will probably agree with this—would be slightly dangerous. Let us say—of course, this will not happen—that after a few years we found that the body was not doing the job we intended it to do, and far from achieving its objective it was doing precisely the opposite, it would be a very good moment to dissolve it. But that could happen before five years or long after. As the noble Viscount implied, what would happen if future legislation were to overcome this legislation? I should make it absolutely clear that we do not anticipate either of these events occurring, but we have to bear them in mind when responding to an exact series of amendments such as these. We think we have got this right. It is important that the Committee understands that if the organisation were to be dissolved, as we hope one day it will be, it would be by the affirmative resolution procedure. The alternative would be to dissolve it through primary legislation, but I think the Committee will agree that the affirmative resolution procedure would be satisfactory. Under Clause 17(2)(b) the functions of the primary authority could be transferred to another body on the dissolution of the LBRO. I have been asked to justify Clause 17 by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which is a fair request. The LBRO has some ambitious objectives, but we anticipate that there will come a time when its objectives have been achieved and local authority regulatory services are implementing regulations in a way consistent with Hampton and the principles of better regulation. We have therefore made provision for its dissolution. The order may make provision for the transfer of property rights and the liabilities of the LBRO to another person, and may provide for the transfer of its functions to another person. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed some concern regarding the provisions for transferring functions under Clause 17(2)(b) and asked that the provision be justified. I shall attempt to do so now. Some of the LBRO’s functions in relation to the primary authority scheme will be ongoing. They will need to be performed in the future regardless of the overall quality of local authority regulation. This is relevant to Part 2. For example, the register of primary authority partnerships will still have to be maintained and the LBRO’s arbitration function will have to continue. The Government’s intention is that the provision should allow for another person to take on these functions so as to ensure the continuing and effective functioning of the primary authority once the LBRO has been dissolved. I hope, therefore, that Clause 17 will stand part of the Bill.