The cutting edge, by Peter Rogers

15 Feb 07
It's the end of the line for a lot of regulatory red tape in local government as Peter Rogers prepares to slash more than 60 Whitehall-controlled areas down to five. He explains his role

16 February 2007

It's the end of the line for a lot of regulatory red tape in local government as Peter Rogers prepares to slash more than 60 Whitehall-controlled areas down to five. He explains his role

Local authorities' regulatory responsibilities fall into that sad camp of Cinderella services whose staff are too often unsung and undervalued. Anything that gives greater focus to the importance of their role is worthwhile.

That is one of the reasons why I accepted the government's request to review those activities last November. The second reason was because it fits in with my philosophy for national government, local government, businesses and consumers. The Local Government Association and local authorities have long been arguing for the removal of unnecessary bureaucracy and burdens. Sitting alongside Michael Frater's Lifting the Burdens Review of red tape in local government, this piece of work has the opportunity to change the way we behave for the better for all concerned.

The review will include more than 60 policy areas, ranging from the welfare of animals in pet shops to the more high-profile areas of noise nuisance and licensing. It will work with local authorities, central government, independent regulators and businesses with the aim of producing a more joined-up approach to regulatory inspection and enforcement.

The plan is to define the current policy areas, assess their relative importance to central government, local citizens and businesses and identify five national priorities, based on their level of risk, political priority and the perceptions of citizens and businesses.

All this has to be done before this year's Budget. The timescale is therefore enormously demanding, and the consultation will inform the quality of the report. In other words, the report can only be as good as the evidence and inputs that it receives. This is a chance to establish a new relationship for government at all levels, leading to greater devolution of powers not just for regulatory services but also for many others. The time is right, the opportunity is here and local authorities need to take advantage of the offer from central government.

But the first consultative meetings showed that many councils fear there is a hidden agenda. Rest assured, this is not a cunning central government plan to cut local authority funding for regulatory services. Neither will the review stop local authorities being accountable for delivering their statutory responsibilities. What it does offer is a chance to revolutionise the way a local authority provides its services. This will include taking a more risk-based approach, as recommended in Philip Hampton's report, Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement. The timing is ideal. Risk-based regulation, backed up with sanctions for offenders as advocated by the Macrory Review of Regulatory Penalties, will give local authorities the opportunity to get what they have asked for – freedom to act locally with clear guidelines from national government over what matters to them.

The most difficult part of this review so far has been language differences. There is a need for interpretation between central and local government. National government thinks in terms of policy initiatives around specific areas. Local authorities join up their goals to deliver outcomes. Nothing in this review needs to change that thought process. Every local authority has a sound and robust business planning process that identifies outcomes for goals using the levers and powers at its disposal.

Regulatory services touch on many local authority goals, whether it is to be cleaner, greener, safer, healthier or more efficient. Local authorities do not compartmentalise but central government does. So there is a challenge for central government to learn the language of delivery and for local authorities to demonstrate value for money. We should see government departments as partners too.

It is important to remember that this review deals only with enforcement priorities, and that these regulatory professionals also have a role to play in policy development and longer-term outcomes. The aim of enforcement is to achieve compliance by industries and citizens. It is not to increase the number of prosecutions as an end in itself. Just as local authorities can argue for more self-regulation, so too can businesses.

Our business consultation exercise has identified a degree of concern. Responsible organisations rely on their commercial reputation for profit and it is not in their interest to damage this by allowing local managers to operate as rogues. Businesses are willing to work with local authorities to achieve better outcomes. Local authorities need to convince big business that household names are not the target for trophy headlines in dealing with lack of compliance in an area.

One of the main goals of this review will be to provide a route map for a clear understanding and a new relationship between national government and local authorities and between local authorities and businesses.

So far, progress has been good. More than 60 policy areas have been cut down to 24 that make a difference. This has been undertaken in liaison with government departments and the professions. A much more refined process is now in place to take those 24 down to the five priority areas. The results will be reported in March. The process to date has involved information gathering from government departments, local authorities, businesses and consumers. The enforcement evidence will be evaluated against the regulatory aim, the impact, the consequences and compliance with current legislation.

Hopefully, out of these will emerge clear national priorities. But that is not enough in itself; priorities in a locality will differ. Animal movements are less relevant in central Birmingham than they are in Sussex or Kent. Licensing is more relevant in Newcastle than it is in Leicestershire. Local priorities need to be added to the national ones through a proper risk assessment and, more importantly, a process where local politicians are able to take account of local citizens' concerns.

This process allows that to happen. If more regulation and enforcement action is required at a local level to meet local priorities, local councils must allocate the necessary resources. Risk assessment and evidence are the tools to make the case. The risk assessment is also an evidence trail for defence if something goes wrong. This is nothing new for local authorities, which never have enough money to do everything they wish to do.

Priorities will need to be refreshed and that will form part of the recommendations for implementation. Clearly, significant emerging risks might also alter local priorities on a much more immediate basis.

Some might argue that nothing will change as a result of this review – but the adoption of five universal priorities operated at a consistent level across local authorities in England will be an important step. The trust that is being given to local authorities to deal with other issues properly and reliably is a statement of confidence in local government by central government. The importance of local communities in determining local priorities is a vital step in the new neighbourhood agenda.

This process begins that journey. It will require a new way of engaging government and accounting for performance to them. It will require a new way of engaging business and dealing with responsible industries – which see themselves as compliant, or indeed, as the first line of enforcement – as well as dealing with those who flout the law. It will mean greater accountability to citizens and consumers at a local level through delivery.

These are all prizes we have demanded from central government and we are now being tentatively offered.

A short piece of work and a demanding timescale that cannot be extended can produce results. Some 200 local authority representatives have already taken the time to attend regional seminars to make their case.

This might be the first of many steps on the road to devolvement of powers from central to local government. Let us hope so. It is necessary if there is to be a happy ending.

Peter Rogers is the chief executive of Westminster City Council and head of the review of local regulatory inspection and enforcement

PFfeb2007

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top