Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 9: 9: Clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert ““and efficiently”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to the general functions of the LBRO and are ploughing some familiar ground, but it is ground where the nature of the argument has moved on since we debated this in Grand Committee. The purpose of the amendment is to add ““and efficiently”” to the word ““effectively”” as the objective relating to the general functions of the LBRO with regard to local authorities in England and Wales in Clause 5. Once again, I take the Minister back to the Regulators’ Compliance Code, which states: "““This Code supports the Government’s better regulation agenda and is based on the recommendations in the Hampton Report. Its purpose is to promote efficient and effective approaches to regulatory inspection and enforcement””." It does not say only ““effective””; it says ““efficient and effective””. When we discussed this in Committee, the Minister was quite sympathetic, saying that the amendment had, "““given me food for thought””.—[Official Report, 21/1/08; col. GC 35.]" I therefore left the Committee stage with a spring in my step but, sadly, since then, his sympathy appears to have drained away, so I am returning to the charge this afternoon. The Minister may say that the quotation I have given concerns only the Regulators’ Compliance Code and not the Bill. I do not entirely accept that because regulation should be all of a piece. Indeed, the purpose behind the Bill is to achieve an even, level playing field with regard to better regulation, and that is the reason behind the creation of the LBRO. Even if I were inclined to accept it, the guide to the Bill, at the top of page 11, refers to the general duties created by the Bill and lays down three duties. It goes on to say: "““These duties closely relate to the Regulators’ Compliance Code and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform … Order … which are currently before Parliament ... The duties created under the RES Bill””—" the Bill we are considering this afternoon— "““will work alongside the Regulators’ Compliance Code and the five principles to ensure that the principles of better regulation are embedded in the delivery of local authority regulatory services””." It therefore seems to me that we are absolutely ad idem on the compliance code and the legislation that we are debating today. The Minister was kind enough to offer us a meeting to discuss this matter in more detail, and I am extremely grateful to him and the noble Baroness. We spent an hour going through some of the trickier issues that we are discussing here this afternoon, and we had a chance to discuss more closely his loss of sympathy—the fact that his intention to give me a fair hearing had somehow disappeared—which appeared to be due to a potential clash with the duties of the Audit Commission. Adding the word ““efficiently”” in Clause 5(1)(a) would cause difficulties with the Audit Commission, given the wording in that subsection, which reads: "““In exercising its functions under sections 6 to 10 LBRO has the objective of securing that local authorities in England and Wales exercise their relevant functions””." It was the duty of the Audit Commission to judge efficiency and therefore, according to the Minister and the Bill team, it was all right for the LBRO to require local authorities to be effective—there would be no clash. However, requiring it to be efficient causes a clash. I thought that that was slightly counterintuitive, so this morning, while preparing for this afternoon, I went to the Printed Paper Office and got out the Audit Commission’s two most recent reports. The first is called Fire and Rescue Performance Assessment, and the summary at paragraph 8 on page 3 says: "““However, all services are achieving some efficiency savings, and 31 fire services … are meeting their efficiency targets””." I thought that I now understood this—I could see what the Government were driving at. Clearly there would be a clash if we had efficiency. However, I then went on to paragraph 9, which states: "““This has been achieved through better arrangements for consulting local people and more effective work at the neighbourhood level””." So, clearly the Audit Commission is measuring effectiveness and efficiency. However, if we turn to page 3 of the second report, which is called Positively Charged: Maximising the Benefits of Local Public Service Charges, there is no mention at all of efficiency. The only reference in the summary reads: "““Councils do not always make the most effective use of their charging powers””." Therefore, I have some difficulty seeing why the Government now argue that ““efficient”” will give rise to a clash when, in the two Audit Commission reports I picked out at random, effectiveness is clearly an important part of their role. The reality is that the LBRO should ensure that local authorities are both effective and efficient. The Minister knows that because that was his reaction when he heard the arguments put to him in Committee. The prospect of a clash with the Audit Commission is, to be candid, a smokescreen. The Minister should trust his instincts and accept the amendment. I beg to move.