Local Authorities: Regulatory Services

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Crawley on securing the debate and on her opening remarks, in which she sketched out clearly the potential dangers of reduced funding in these areas. It was based on her own experience, which I found interesting.

I shall confine my remarks to environmental health services issues. In varying forms these services are provided by each of the district, metropolitan and unitary authorities in England, and what environmental health officers do often goes unsung. I think it was my noble friend Lady Crawley who made the point that it is a success for them when nothing untoward happens, but increasingly that success is being challenged.

It is the job of environmental health officers to assess, correct and prevent those factors adversely affecting the health of current and future generations, whether in their homes, their schools or their workplaces or out and about, at leisure or on the move. Day to day, this important local service deals with housing, food safety, environmental protection and workplace health and safety.

The scale of this responsibility is perhaps best illustrated by reference to housing. There are some 9 million families in the private rented sector and many of the properties are defective in some way, a third of them failing to meet the Government’s decent homes standards. Gas safety and improving poor fire precautions are priorities, particularly in the increasing number of houses which are in multiple occupation.

Increasingly, the role of environmental health officers has been to help to shape healthier environments and to address the causes of health inequalities. It is those inequalities that Sir Michael Marmot’s 2010 report identified as costing the national economy—which of course involves each and every one of us—up to £70 billion each year. It seems an astronomical sum but it highlights the importance of this issue.

A year ago, the public sector trade union, UNISON, surveyed its members who work as environmental health officers. Problems associated with rogue landlords were seen as an issue by 42% of those surveyed who are dealing with these matters on a day-to-day basis. This was added to by comments that hitherto conscientious landlords were now more prone to cut corners for cost reasons. It was clear that less active regulation gave many landlords the confidence to act with impunity. Respondents pointed out the impact of poor housing and exposure to pests such as bed bugs on the health of families—in particular, its effect on children. These sorts of trends can only add further impetus to the ever-widening health inequalities within society.

Other challenges facing environmental health officers concern their involvement in workplace health and safety. Those responsibilities are concerned principally with reducing the numbers of injuries and fatalities from work-related activities in a wide range of premises, yet too many employers claim that such legislation and its enforcement constitute burdens. Can it ever be accepted that ensuring safety at work is a burden?

The Prime Minister likes to appease his Back-Benchers, it seems, by banging on about slashing so-called EU red tape. He actually means slashing employees’ rights at work—rights such as four weeks’ paid leave or limits on the hours that children and young people can work, rights for mothers such as the right not to be sacked for being pregnant or for taking time off for antenatal appointments, equal treatment for workers employed through an agency, and last, but by no means least, the requirement for employers to protect the health and safety of their employees at work.

The role played by environmental health officers in that is essential. However, as their numbers are cut, so too are the number of visits they can make. This allows some employers to make a risk assessment—not about their workers’ safety but about the likelihood of being found out for failing to comply with health and safety legislation. Environmental health officers not visiting premises regularly will result in poorer knowledge of what is happening in the business community and, inevitably, a rise in workplace injuries and deaths.

The UNISON survey also asked respondents to comment on how cuts made over the past two years—as a result of the 2010 comprehensive spending review—had impacted upon their ability to deliver environmental health services. The responses showed a clear picture of a diminishing workforce and, consequently, reduced services. This often meant that staff had less capacity to undertake proactive work with communities and business, and many environmental health officers felt that that was a false economy, effectively storing up greater problems in the long term.

When cuts are made to services that the public cannot immediately see, there is a danger that they will not realise how much they rely on them until those services are gone. Environmental health is a service that is not important unless or until there is a problem. The media and some politicians are often disdainful of health and safety merely as a concept, but whenever an event leads to serious injuries, or even perhaps deaths, those same people are quick to ask, “Why was this allowed to happen?”. Cause and effect needs to be appreciated, and the relentless drive for cuts should not be allowed to mask the inherent dangers that they involve.

Revenue support for English local authorities has been cut by about a third in real terms since the 2010 comprehensive spending review, and the further 10% cut announced by the Chancellor in yesterday’s review continues that trend. Recent data gathered by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health highlighted another effect of the cuts. They suggest that as many as 25% of the environmental health services provided by local authorities are no longer headed by a qualified person. That, I suggest, is a disgrace and should be a real cause for government concern. I ask the Minister: is it?

There can be no question that both the levels and quality of front-line services have been adversely affected by sharp reductions in their funding over the past three years. The health and safety, and well-being, of the public—often, the most vulnerable members of the public—are being compromised daily as a result. I say to the Minister: are the Government content to allow this to continue?