Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

My Lords, we spent some time in Committee discussing the principles of good regulation, which feature prominently in the LBRO’s objective. Local authorities are already required to have regard to the principles of good regulation, under the provisions in the legislative and regulatory reform order. That order applies the principles as listed in Section 21 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. The fifth of the principles, which we are talking about here, states that, "““regulatory activity should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed””." Clause 5(2)(a) follows that wording precisely. The word ““only”” is what the noble Baroness complains of. A change in wording here would send somewhat contradictory messages to the LBRO and to local authorities, and would clearly be undesirable. However, I acknowledge that concerns were raised in Committee that ““only””, which here is attached to the fifth principle of targeting, could cast a cloud over some important work performed by local authorities. The clause specifies that regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases where ““action is needed””. That does not mean that local authorities may only act where there is a specific problem. It means that they should target their activities where they are needed more generally. There is no doubt that local authorities will need to do some investigative work to determine if there is a specific problem in the first place. I give an example: a fire authority may want to do random inspections of high-risk premises in its area or a food authority may need to take random samples of food to test for contamination. Clearly those are both cases where action is needed. Local authorities could not do their work in protecting the public adequately without that action. It would not, therefore, be excluded by the principle. However, the principle of targeting suggests that purely routine inspections, with no such meaningful rationale, should not go ahead, and that is obviously right. Consistency with the existing legislation is critical, but I acknowledge the concerns expressed on this point. Reluctantly, we disagree with the noble Baroness. ““Only”” should remain in the clause.