---

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that elucidation. I have made the case in the past that to make and deliver better regulation we need to be able to repeal offences or reduce or remove sanctions for offences when they are considered no longer to be targeted or appropriate. An example of the reduction or removal of regulatory sanctions might be changing the sanctions connected to breaching a licensing regime for a particular activity. I have explained that in earlier debates. It is not new. Regulatory reform orders under the 2001 Act could reform legislation which imposed burdens, including sanctions, criminal or otherwise, affecting persons in the carrying on of an activity, because of the definition of burden in Section 2 (1) of the 2001 Act. The definition in this Bill is narrower than that in the 2001 Act. In the Bill, the definition of sanctions, criminal or otherwise, means that an order can remove or reduce only criminal sanctions which relate to the carrying on of an activity. This means that sanctions relating to offences under the general criminal law cannot be repealed or reduced, as opposed to what the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said. It would not be possible, for example, to remove or reduce by order sanctions for murder, rape or burglary. This is an important and essential safeguard against any inappropriate use of the order-making power in Clause 1. I know that noble Lords have been very exercised by that issue. Amendment No. 14, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, would have the effect that this restriction would be removed. I imagine that this is not the effect which the noble Lord intended, and as the Government also prefer to make explicit that the order-making powers are limited to removing or reducing sanctions which relate to the carrying on of an activity, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. I return to why this definition of burdens is necessary to deliver better regulation. Professor Richard Macrory, Professor of Environmental Law at UCL, has been appointed by the Government to carry out an independent review of the sanctions regimes used by regulators and local authorities. He notes that: "““Sanctions are an important part of any regulatory system. They provide a deterrent and can act as a catalyst to ensure that regulations are complied with””." That may be stating the obvious, but it is important as it spells out exactly why regulations are necessary. I think we all agree that effective regulations and sanctions regimes play a critical part in regulating and encouraging proper behaviour. Professor Macrory’s recommendations are likely to involve significant changes to the entire penalties regime to make it more responsive and more proportionate, and this Bill is not a substitute for that work. It is clear, however, that having a flexible, proportionate and responsive sanctions regime is a key part of any regulatory toolkit, and of the better regulation agenda. I should give an example of why this definition of burden is necessary to deliver sensible reform to established regulatory systems that have a real impact on those on the ground bound by the rules. Members of the Committee may have heard me mention at Second Reading that stakeholders have submitted, via the Government’s internet site, a proposal to repeal arcane rules on selling game. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked me not to quote this example, but it is a good one and I shall do so.