We are less concerned with the structures of regulation, than with ensuring that environmental and public health is always critical to the central purpose of regulation. In our view, the issue is not primarily about who does what and how, but of how priorities are set and co-ordinated, and what underpins those priorities.
- We support the promotion of more efficient approaches to regulatory inspection and enforcement without reducing regulatory outcomes. But we also believe that the administrative burden on regulators should be reduced – a reduction in the administrative burden should not in effect be a shift from business to regulators.
- We believe that there should be a more joined-up approach amongst regulators, at both national and local level.
Local government’s track record in this respect is superior to that of national government. Many of the problems local regulators face are caused by having to work within an uncoordinated national regulatory framework, without a clear hierarchy of priorities and where local conditions have to be set against national objectives and targets.
There is a lack of a clear central government focus on environmental health and its regulatory role, for instance there is no clear “sponsor” or “champion” department for environmental within the government machinery.
- We recommend the placing of greater emphasis on the role of advice and education to assist businesses to comply with regulatory requirements; we believe that local regulators would prefer to prioritise this approach over enforcement.
There is a strong record in the environmental health profession of applying sound risk-based assessment principles, something acknowledged by the Hampton Review.