Clause 5
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [Lords]
11:15 am
Pat McFadden (Minister of State (Employment Relations and Postal Affairs), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Wolverhampton South East, Labour)
Clause 5 is important as it sets out the principles of better regulation to which the LBRO will have regard. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford mentioned, subsection (2) sets out its functions stating that
“regulatory activities should be carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent...targeted only at cases in which action is needed”.
Those of us with history in such debates are familiar with those five principles, which have become an important part of the policy framework regarding better regulation. The amendment deals specifically with the regulators compliance code, recently issued under section 22 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. The scope of the code in respect of local authorities coincides closely with parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. It applies to local authorities in their exercise of trading standards, environmental health, licensing and fire safety functions. The LBRO will, therefore, take an interest in the performance of local authorities when delivering its duties under the code.
However, including a provision in the Bill that requires LBRO to ensure that local authorities act in accordance with it could cause confusion for businesses and local authorities. Although I understand the intention behind the amendment, its effect would be to place local authorities under two contradictory legal obligations. The provisions in section 21 of the 2006 Act and the legislative and regulatory functions order under which the code was issued, require local authorities to have regard to the code. Legally, that means that in certain circumstances, a local authority can take the code into account but decide not to apply it.
Amendment No. 1 would require LBRO to ensure that local authorities act in accordance with the code. Under that requirement, the circumstances in which a local authority could decide not to apply it are limited almost to none. It would be undesirable to have those two contradictory legal requirements running side by side.