Clause 66
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [Lords]
10:15 am
Mark Prisk (Shadow Minister, Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Hertford and Stortford, Conservative)
I want the new clause to be regarded as a distinct element. If the Minister embraces both proposals warmly, the matter will be resolved, but if not, we may wish to press them to a Division. It would be appropriate to hear his response, but we might wish to deal with new clause 3 separately.
Amendment No. 45 would insert two subsections into the clause. It relates to local authorities, and it would reinforce the need for all regulators to be fully compliant with the Hampton principles. We have debated them, so I shall not rehearse them now. The amendment stems, as does new clause 3, from worries that have been expressed by business. I am particularly grateful to the British Retail Consortium for bringing the issue to my attention. It is worried that this part of the Bill does not explicitly state roots in the Hampton principles, and it wants consistency in the compliance of regulations with those principles. It says that not only when regulators begin their process should they be seen to be compliant, but that there should be a process by which that is made consistent throughout their operation.
The amendment would provide the Government with a compromise. It would allow the powers to proceed as the clause envisages, even if some authorities are not currently compliant. It would give the Local Better Regulation Office a role to ensure that such authorities become compliant in a year. It would make sure of the opportunity to achieve Hampton compliance. We can all think of local authorities that may achieve that at a particular point, but we believe in the principles and want the whole system to be skewed towards ensuring that the maximum number of authorities are compliant, and thus able to participate.
New clause 3 would ensure that other regulators who can use the administrative penalties are also consistently compliant with the Hampton principles. As the Minister knows, the Macrory report was clear that the use of administrative penalties should only be for regulators who are consistently compliant. As drafted, the Bill does not seem to secure ongoing compliance. It requires an assessment prior to the first allocation of the powers, but not thereafter. It may well be that with the vast range of resources behind him, the hon. Gentleman can identify the fact that such a provision is embedded in another part of the Bill. Unless he can show that a consistent compliance provision exists, the new clause would strengthen the Bill’s Hampton credentials. Consistency is just as important as being compliant at the beginning, so if I may I shall move the amendment and new clause 3.