Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 29: 29: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause— ““Memorandum of understanding LBRO must enter into a memorandum of understanding with the devolved authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland as to how they will work together in the exercise of their respective functions.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to an issue that has concerned me regarding the different treatment emerging in the United Kingdom as a result of the devolved nature of Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is a serious weakness in the planned approach of the Bill, about which the Government are only now starting to be clear and honest. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, was uncharacteristically ratty with me in Grand Committee when I pointed that out in our debate on Clause 73, which is on extent. I shall briefly readdress my arguments. Paragraph 4 of the Explanatory Notes states: "““The Hampton Review set out a vision for a risk-based approach to regulation and included a set of principles for regulatory inspection and enforcement, based around risk and proportionality””." Nowhere does that paragraph mention the episodic nature of this approach, whereby it may or may not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. Furthermore, in the debate on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham, said: "““The UK’s better regulation agenda is widely regarded across the world as being the most ambitious anywhere””.—[Official Report, 28/11/07; col. 1238.]" He then prayed in aid this legislation as part of that work. That is all very well, but the Bill is not about the UK; for the most part, it is about England and Wales, with some references to Scotland and Northern Ireland coming along behind. When the Minister talked about the UK, that showed how far he is adrift from what the Bill seeks to achieve. Paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Notes states: "““The Hampton Review found that the diffuse structure of local authority regulatory enforcement increases uncertainty and administrative burdens for business””." We are not tackling this issue as regards Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Bill is flawed in respect of firms that operate on a UK-wide basis. Only when one reaches paragraph 17 of the Explanatory Notes does it become clear what the Bill’s remit is in different parts of the UK. I tried to think about how we could move this game forward. My thought was that Clause 12 might be relevant, as it requires the establishment of memorandums of understanding with certain key regulators—those with which LBRO and local authorities are expected to have the greatest amount of day-to-day contact. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will forgive me if I quote what he said in Grand Committee. He said: "““There is of course a problem of local authorities receiving mixed messages from central government … Having some memoranda of understanding is vitally important: it helps to improve the consistency of messages coming through to local authorities from central government””.—[Official Report, 23/1/08; col. GC 136.]" What I am trying to achieve in the amendment is a memorandum of understanding between LBRO within England and Wales and the appropriate authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland, with a view to avoiding mixed messages. That is what my new clause is all about. My proposal would not infringe anyone’s sovereignty. I am sure that the Minister will say—the Bill team pointed this out at our meeting on Monday—that we cannot require the devolved Administration in Scotland or Northern Ireland to enter into memoranda of understanding. I am not clear how we will require one of their regulators to enter into any meaningful MoU. I can understand that there is a requirement to force them to do something, but a worthwhile MoU between LBRO and the regulators listed in Clause 12 will come about after negotiations—because of give-and-take in discussions—on how best to approach this matter. Under my amendment, that would be the case for the devolved Administrations. There would be an opportunity for discussions to take place and for a process with a level playing field to emerge. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter carefully, with a view to making the Bill a better piece of legislation, because it would provide the certainty of a level playing field across the United Kingdom as a whole. In Grand Committee, we discussed an amendment similar to my second amendment in the group, Amendment No. 106 to Clause 73. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the long and detailed letter that he sent me by hand today, no less. I had the benefit of it ahead of this debate. He states that the clause, "““is not designed to specify what provision we are making about the law in each jurisdiction. That is done in the main body of the Bill itself””." I accept that, but if you are going to have to work through this legislation, you will find it quite difficult, when you reach subsections (1), (3) and (4) of Clause 23, to work out that this is the part of the Bill that tells you that Part 2 does not apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland. If, as I suspect, his speaking notes state that this amendment is not acceptable and will break every constitutional precept, I hope that he will find ways to make it absolutely clear in this legislation where and what it applies to. This Bill is meant to ensure better regulation. Better regulation is clear regulation and we have failed to achieve proper clarity in this significant area. I understand that this is a difficult and tricky issue, but we must find a way, if we are trying to help UK plc to have a level playing field. Finding some way of tackling the issues implicit for the devolved Administrations is critical. I beg to move.