Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with what has been said by the mover of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I recalled that in Committee my noble friend Lord Desai indicated that it was rather difficult to think of saying that a local authority has been effective in its job without also considering whether it had been efficient. The two seem to go together like twins and that led me to think that the proposal in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is redundant because ““effective”” covers the same area. However, to be on the safe side and make it clearer to local authorities, businesspeople, consumers and whoever is concerned with the provision in the Bill, it may well be a good idea to have ““efficient”” added to ““effective””. The noble Lord has done his homework in studying a selection of Audit Commission reports and has made some important points. I was not terribly convinced of the explanation given in Committee by my noble friend Lord Bach when in rejecting ““efficient”” he said that that was a matter for the Audit Commission. I fully accept that detailed assessment of local government management and its efficiency is indeed a matter for the Audit Commission, but I do not see a clash between that assessment that the Audit Commission pursues and the idea in the amendment that the LBRO should consider the effectiveness and efficiency of local authorities. Therefore, I still have sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord.