Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

I also have concerns about the way in which Clause 28 has been drafted. The Minister tried to reassure us in part in his response to the previous group of amendments. He gave us a halcyon picture of local authorities and businesses working closely together to create a wonderful set of inspection plans. The lion may lie down with the lamb, but I do not think it will be because of Clause 28. The problem here is cultural and historical and the solution will be by attitudinal change rather than legislative change. Trying to bring that about with the prescriptive provisions in Clause 28 carries with it many dangers, some of which my noble friend has mentioned. This kind of government approach is usually breached rather than observed. The boxes are ticked, the procedure is gone through and no one changes their mind. It becomes a matter of, ““We have fulfilled what we have got to do. We have been told to do it and it has been done””. There is no spirit attached to it and it will take a different approach to achieve that spirit. Whether life in France is quite as good as the Minister makes out, I do not know, but we need to find a way of altering behaviour patterns. I doubt whether this legislation will do it. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is not in his place. He is keen on reducing words—he keeps telling us that we have to cut back the Bill—and when he spoke in an earlier debate he said: "““The more I listen to this debate, the more astonished I am at how local authorities carry on. Noble Lords opposite are business-like, and it is business-like to use as few words as possible, to get on with the job and to do it well””.—[Official Report, 21/1/08; col. GC 41.]" That is why I am unhappy about Clause 28.