PAPER B

REPORT TO POLICY COMMISSION FOR SAFER COMMUNITIES

Subject : CORPORATE ENFORCEMENT (Saf4/05)

SUMMARY/PURPOSE

1. This report is to reflect the view of Legal Services in the way enforcement is addressed within this Authority. Legal Services has been asked to consider its view having regard to the status quo, a corporate enforcement department, and a four block approach – Highways and Traffic, DC/Building Control, Community Support Officers and Consumer Protection.

TYPES OF ENFORCEMENT

2. As an Authority, the types of enforcement undertaken are many and diverse. A wide range of legislation, whether it be Acts of Parliament or Regulations, are dealt with by various departments, including Building Act 1984, Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended), Clean Air Act 1993, Environmental Protection Act 1990, Food Safety Act 1990, Trade Descriptions Act 1968, Highways Act 1980, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Education Act 1996 and Licensing Act 2003, to name just some of the Acts. Some enforcement provisions require the service of statutory Notices, whilst others require prosecution.

3. There are some similarities in the enforcement task across the range of legislation and when investigating an alleged offence, the way in which cautions are administered, the collating and preparation of statements and collection of evidence and procedures at Court may be the same.

HOW ENFORCEMENT IS CURRENTLY CARRIED OUT

4. Enforcement is currently dealt with differently in different sections. In Planning for example, there are dedicated Enforcement Officers, whose task is to specialise in enforcement. In other sections, a component of an officer’s work is to carry out enforcement activity. This is the case for example in Environmental Health, where a professional officer with expertise in his or her field in relation to Environmental Health undertakes investigating complaints, accidents or inspecting premises. It could be argued that in many areas there is a high degree of specialist technical knowledge required to enable effective enforcement and collation of evidence to take place.

DISADVANTAGES OF REMOVING ENFORCEMENT AWAY FROM INDIVIDUAL DESIGNATED AREAS

5. Whist enforcement officers within a dedicated team would be able to share skills and experience, there would be a loss of ability to work in an environment surrounded by professionals in the same field which in itself leads to training and professional development on a daily basis together with an increase in knowledge in a specific area. Training officers dealing in completely different areas of legislation, few in number in each case, could potentially be expensive and difficult to provide in-house. Because of the diversity of legislation and the specific skills necessary to work in individual areas it is not the view of Legal Services that the role of enforcement officers is interchangeable between different legislation except perhaps in the more limited sharing of roles as proposed in the four block approach.

6. There is a risk that the enforcement officers will become detached from the subject needing enforcement, and a system would be needed to relay the need to enforce which could potentially lead to additional delay or further costs.

7. The Council’s Housing Benefit Fraud Investigation Officers currently work closely with the Department of Work and Pensions Investigators and this possibly provides one of the best examples of a combined approach to enforcement. It is not unfair to say that although procedurally there are similarities, this method of working has on occasion resulted in substantial time delays. Such delays have in the past resulted in the period within which the Council could issue proceedings for the recovery of Housing Benefit and Council Tax benefit passing. The result of the delay being that no action can be taken. This example highlights the problems that can potentially be caused by the need to refer a matter to another for clarification of specialist information and in all possibility could also be evident where an enforcement officer is removed from professionals carrying out other tasks in his or her field.

PROSECUTION FORUM

8. Legal Services provide a prosecution forum, bringing together all enforcement officers across the Authority to provide training corporately on matters such as the collation of evidence and administering of cautions. Such training is continuing and is currently well attended. There is therefore already a forum where there is an opportunity to consider a corporate approach to enforcement without potentially losing the on-the-job training opportunities that take place daily by enforcement officers working direct with other officers in their field. The prosecution forum has operated by way of legal staff providing training but also by inviting professional officers within the Council to share their skills in areas where they have a specialism, therefore utilising officers who already demonstrate excellent practice to train others across the Authority.

9. The forum has led to the development of a prosecution pack, a unified form for instructing legal services, and it is hoped that this will be fully utilized by all departments by the end of 2006.

SUMMARY

10. Whilst it is recognised that there is a desire to avoid businesses being inspected by a number of different officers enforcing various legislation, thereby minimising disruption, it is necessary to understand that not all enforcement is as a result of annual inspection but rather is reactive when a breach occurs. When a breach occurs of course is not within the control of the Local Authority and whilst, through the use perhaps of a corporate enforcement reporting system where breaches occur they involve several enforcement areas a joint visit could take place, it may simply be the fact that not all enforcement issues arrive at one time and certainly Legal Services’ concern would be that even if several arrived at one time, one individual enforcement officer would not be sufficiently qualified in a variety of legislation to address issues. Take for example a night club. Whilst there may be some routine inspection if food is served, an inspection by the Fire Authority in terms of assessing fire escapes etc, and an annual licensing inspection, if at any time the operator either breaches Planning or Licensing Laws or there is an incident of food poisoning, each of these will require reactive enforcement by officers specialised in the particular field.

11. It is the view of Legal Services that to remove enforcement officers from their specialised environment would not be beneficial to enforcement, could lead to a reduction of specialist knowledge which could in turn require greater input from officers in their professional fields providing guidance and advice to an enforcement team. This would undoubtedly lead to greater costs in the Council successfully meeting its enforcement obligations.

12. A four block approach would be less disruptive although even within these blocks there could be a diverse range of legislation and a substantial need for specialist officer knowledge.

RECOMMENDATION

13. It is the view of Legal Services that a “corporate enforcement reporting system” could be created with a view to ensuring that departments are kept informed of all ongoing enforcement issues, enabling where possible for joint meetings or visits to minimise disruption to businesses and to ensure effective joined-up thinking across departments. There are some clear links between for example Planning and Building Control where the sharing of information does take place but if a corporate enforcement reporting system was designed to be utilised by all enforcement officers across the Authority, this could provide the opportunity for the sharing of information leading to more effective enforcement.

14. The prosecution forum could continue to be utilized as a way of ensuring procedures in enforcement are the same.

Date: 1 August 2006

Contact Point : Helen Miles, ' 823288, email [email protected]