| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The overlaps are many and we expect—I am sure it will happen—the LBRO to liaise routinely with the Home Office, not least through its powers to give advice to Ministers on any matter relating to the exercise of the relevant functions by local authorities. That may well extend to questions of overlap and liaison with the work of other relevant authorities, including the police.
However—I suspect that the noble Lord thought a “however”, if not a “but”, was coming—it is clear that a direct extension of the LBRO’s work in the manner proposed, which one can see from reading further on in Clause 6 would require the police to have regard to its guidance, would be a significant departure from the body that we have consulted on. It would require a complete review of many other aspects of the legislation, not least the LBRO’s objective, which the noble Lord has been trying to widen during the course of our proceedings this afternoon. We do not think his amendment is the answer, but I reassure him, if I can, that this evening he has proved the relevance of the connection between police work and regulatory work by local authorities.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I began by saying that I was going to do some off-piste skiing, and I did not expect this to be welcomed with open arms by the Minister. I am grateful for the sympathetic noises. It will be important that we find a way to encourage the LBRO to liaise with the police forces and for the police forces to take proper note of what the LBRO says to them if we are to get the cohesive approach that will be needed if we are to get the regulatory system that we are all striving for in this Bill. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. I thank him for
21 Jan 2008 : Column GC53
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 29:
“(d) may relate to the priorities for the allocation of resources by local authorities in respect of relevant functions.”The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 29, I shall also speak to Clause 11 stand part. A number of amendments tabled in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, are also in this group.
My amendment is about resources. It adds the issue of priority in the allocation of resources to the guidance section and deletes the rather more heavy-handed, as I read them, provisions in Clause 11. Every Bill tends to assume that there are unlimited resources for its own subject matter, but we are talking about a cake where the slice for a particular subject may not be enough to do all that everyone wants. If the LBRO is to have the influence that we have been assuming and welcoming, it should face up to the fact that the slice of cake may not be adequate and advise local authorities on how they should prioritise the resources that are available. Clause 11 provides for enforcement priorities, including resources. It is a rather heavier hand. The Minister may be able to explain the relationship between Clauses 6 and 11 and say whether one has more effect than the other. I beg to move.
Viscount Eccles: This may be a convenient moment to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in her approach to Clause 11 and to speak to my Amendments Nos. 40A to 40D and 42A. I entirely agree with the description “heavy handed”. That is the problem with this clause. The noble Baroness would deal with that if she proposed an amendment to strike the clause out. My proposal is to amend the clause. The principle behind the amendment seems to be that the emphasis throughout the Bill should be on advice and not on instructing or second-guessing local authorities; still less on encouraging them into box-ticking lists.
My amendments have two objectives. One is to bring the LBRO and local authorities together in their pursuit of effective ways of achieving better regulation. They should not be in opposition to each other. Each local authority will have its own approach to an experience of regulatory activities, and in that regard I feel rather short of evidence of all this inconsistency, slack behaviour and lack of regard to all the work that has been done to achieve better regulation to date. Each local authority will have been, or can be, persuaded to set priorities. How else can a local authority control its expenditure—another point made by the noble Baroness?
The second objective is that if the dialogue between the LBRO and local authorities becomes and remains friendly and positive, both pursuing the same
21 Jan 2008 : Column GC54
Lord Bach: Local authorities have repeatedly requested that the Government clarify their priorities for local authority regulatory enforcement. In March 2007, Mr Peter Rogers, chief executive of Westminster Council, carried out the first cross-cutting review of national regulatory priorities. The Government accepted the Rogers recommendations, and for the first time local authorities have been presented with a clear, evidence-based account of the issues which the Government believe should be prioritised in their work.
Clause 11 makes provision for the LBRO to carry this valuable work forward, and I emphasise that this has been strongly supported by both business and local authorities. The provisions in the clause will not prevent councils from giving due regard to their own priorities; nor will they reduce the regulatory standards that businesses need to meet. The clause will guarantee that central government continues to give a clear message to local authorities about their priorities. As I say, local authorities seem to welcome that.
Removing Clause 11 and replacing it with the provisions in Amendment No. 29 would remove the detailed provisions on the LBRO’s function of preparing and publishing a list of national regulatory priorities. Significantly, the amendments would remove the obligation placed on the LBRO to prepare and publish a list of national regulatory priorities. In short, under Clause 11, the LBRO must prepare and publish a list of regulatory priorities, but under Amendment No. 29, the LBRO may issue guidance on local authority priorities in allocating resources. Given the importance of the Government issuing clear messages to local authorities and the strong support expressed for the LBRO preparing and publishing a list of regulatory priorities, our view is that the LBRO should be obliged to play this role. Clause 11, which obliges it to play that role, is therefore appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 40A to 40D and Amendment No. 42A, all in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, would remove the key safeguard from Clause 11. In particular, these amendments would allow the LBRO to publish a list of regulatory priorities without first receiving the consent of the Secretary of State. I know why the noble Viscount is concerned about that, but in this instance that may be mistaken. We think that the consent of the Secretary of State is a safeguard here and that it is appropriate for him or her to be ultimately responsible for the content of any list published by the LBRO, because the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. These amendments would also remove the obligation placed on the LBRO to review a list of priorities on its own initiative and when requested to do so by the Secretary of State. It is vital that any list
21 Jan 2008 : Column GC55
Amendment No. 41 has not been moved. I have been through the amendments in this group as best I can. It is for the reasons I have stated that we think that the noble Baroness is wrong. She makes an interesting point, but Clause 11 is of significance and is widely supported.
Baroness Hamwee: I wondered whether the noble Viscount wanted to come back on any of that. I am grateful to him for his support. I forgot to say in my opening remarks that I have put a tick against a number of his amendments in this group, which is my code for saying that I agree with them. The Minister says that local authorities want central government to be clearer about their priorities. It does not seem to me that it needs to have Clause 11 to do that, because Clause 11 amounts very closely to the Secretary of State setting priorities, which is the heavy hand to which I refer.
21 Jan 2008 : Column GC56
Some of these are difficult issues, but local government saying that it wants something like this is almost surrendering in a way which I am very disappointed to hear. I have to say that I have not had a briefing from the Local Government Association for this stage of the Bill. I went to find my mail because briefings so often arrive as one is walking into a Committee.
Baroness Hamwee:Hansard should record that general consensus. I have not had a briefing. I would naturally have taken very seriously anything that the LGA has to say. However, I hear what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley): The Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday.
- The Committee adjourned at 7.33 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |