PAPER B
COMMITTEE: Policy Commission for Safer Communities
DATE : 5
January 2006
SUBJECT : Corporate
Enforcement (Saf 4/05)
REPORT of : Rob Owen, Head of
Consumer Protection
SUMMARY :
The Safer Communities Commission approved a scoping document last July for an enquiry entitled “Corporate Enforcement”. This report provides the Commission with outline of the work undertaken to support this enquiry so far, and seeks views from the Commission on the direction the enquiry should take over the next three months.
1.
Proposed outcomes for this enquiry from the original scoping document
are:
·
Improved protection for consumers and businesses
·
More efficient use of resources
·
Reduction in the regulatory burden on businesses
2.
A clear understanding of the function of enforcement work is crucial if
this enquiry is to achieve these outcomes.
One definition of the term has been published by the Cabinet
Office. The Cabinet Office have defined
local government enforcement work “ . . .as work carried out to protect the
public, the environment and groups such as consumers and workers”. Protect is the key word. The Cabinet Office promotes the notion of
enforcement officers carrying out enforcement work in an equitable, practical
and consistent manner therein promoting a climate in which an economy can
thrive. The Cabinet Office encourages
enforcement officers to take care to help businesses and others to meet their
legal obligations without incurring unnecessary expense, whilst taking firm
action, including prosecution where appropriate, against those that flout the
law or act irresponsibly.
3.
Local authorities have been encouraged by government since 1998 to
subscribe to an Enforcement Concordat that commends principles of good
enforcement. This Council adopted the
Concordat relatively soon after its launch.
The principles include OPENNESS, HELPFULNESS, PROPORTIONALITY AND
CONSISTENCY. Although the Concordat has
proved to be an invaluable tool, proposals have been made to refresh the
content whilst retaining those important principles. A copy of the Concordat is attached as Appendix 1.
4.
If one examines Council services where enforcement is a key
responsibility, for example in Consumer Protection, where this Council’s
Environmental Health and Trading Standards Services are based the principles of
the Concordat are underpinned by enforcement policy statements. By way of example, a copy of the Trading
Standards Service’s enforcement statement is attached as Appendix 2.
5. This Council like other Councils, has vested in it by government a broad range of enforcement responsibilities through which we protect the health, safety and economic well being of individuals, communities and the environment. We use enforcement to promote these interests. If the Council fails to meet its responsibilities in a number of areas, government retains reserve powers to take on the Council’s responsibilities. Again, in a number of areas, government will periodically audit our approach to enforcement.
6. Insofar as this enquiry is concerned approaches have been made to the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Regulatory Services (LACORS), the Local Government Association (LGA) and Government Office of the South East (GOSE). It would appear that no common best practice model is evolving for brigading the broad range of enforcement duties falling to be enforced by Councils.
7. What has become clear is that Government is committed to establishing a new body, the Local Better Regulation Office (LBRO). LBRO will not be a new regulator. LBRO is to take on the work of a body known as the Local Authority Better Regulation Group (LABREG). LBRO will be tasked with a duty to minimise burdens on business and work in partnership with local authorities and national regulators to deliver a risk based approach to business inspection and enforcement. For the record, most of this Councils inspectorial work in Environmental Health and Trading Standards (there are about 6000 island businesses liable to inspection) is already risk based.
8. Developments within LBRO should be followed carefully by the Safer Communities Commission and the Council. A Better Regulation Act (or similar) is an excepted outcome, later in 2006.
9. The Safer Communities Commission might like to adopt a view on a comprehensive audit of Council enforcement conducted at Head of Service/Assistant Chief Executive level across the Council. The audit could be directed at identifying:
·
the extent of all enforcement work currently undertaken
·
the people resource allocated to enforcement
·
the financial resource allocated to enforcement
·
feedback from any third party audit of enforcement work undertaken in all
service area over say the last 3 years
·
a copy of any enforcement policy
·
views on corporate enforcement and in particular linkages to non enforcement
work in the same service area.
The audit proposed
should help the Commission to address risks associated with considering a new
structure for delivering corporate enforcement. Is the primary objective of this enquiry corporate enforcement or
better enforcement? Alternative
approaches could be adopted within the Council to promote consistent
enforcement standards, effective evidence gathering, compliance with the
enforcement concordat and compliance with statutory codes of practice, i.e.
better enforcement.
10. The Commission’s views on how best to
consult with the community on this enquiry would be welcomed. The Isle of Wight Chamber of Commerce and
Industry periodically surveys its membership about a range of issues including
enforcement. A representative of the
Chamber may wish to comment on the concepts underpinning the enquiry. Views could also be sought from other
prominent trade groupings on the island, for example the Isle of Wight branch
of the National Farmers Union. Partner
enforcer’s views, e.g. Food Standards Agency, Health and Safety Executive,
Environment Agency, Police should also be sought.
11. Professionals who have a duty to enforce
often find themselves asking the question is prosecution a success or a
failure? In some situations the
question is difficult to answer. Do
commissioners have a view?
12. A new structure to deliver councilwide
enforcement may have implications for existing accommodation arrangements. Those arrangements have not yet been
explored.
1. That the Commission support proposals for an audit of councilwide enforcement.
2. That officers monitor LBRO developments and ensure that the lead member for the enquiry be appropriately briefed.
3. That a programme of community consultation be undertaken to identify strengths and weaknesses of this councils approach to enforcement.
4. That a further progress report be presented to the Commission’s meeting, say in April, with view to providing guidance on the blue paper for “Corporate Enforcement” before final preparation for submission to cabinet.
Rob Owen, 823388, Head of Consumer Protection X8388
email: [email protected]
Appendix 1 Enforcement Concordat
Appendix 2 TS Enforcement Statement