Volume 15: Government and Public Administration
9. Local government
Consultation with central government

9.28 Although the Department of the Environment (DoE) ¹ was responsible for local government structure and funding, no single Government Department was responsible for central/local government relations overall. Each Department's contact with the authorities related to the service(s) with which it was concerned. Sometimes, there was a straightforward relationship between a Government Department and the relevant departments in local authorities, for example between the Department of Education and Science ² and the education departments of County Councils, London Boroughs and Metropolitan Boroughs. But no single Government Department had overall responsibility for policies which impinged on local authority trading standards and environmental health departments. The relevant functions for these derived from legislation introduced by MAFF, DH, DoE, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Department of Trade and Industry, and councils could receive instructions and guidance from any or all of these.

9.29 Because of the large number of local authorities, central government usually conducted its relations with them through the local authority associations (LAAs) and through relevant service-specific or professional bodies. In 1986, there were four associations covering local government in England and Wales: the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the London Boroughs Association. ³ In the mid-1980s, some London Boroughs formed a new separate organisation, the Association of London Authorities.

9.30 The LAAs were organised rather like local authorities, with governing bodies made up of elected councillors from member councils and a committee structure made up of councillors supported by officials. These committees met regularly.

9.31 The associations represented the interests of their member authorities, taking up with central government issues and problems raised by their members. They also acted as a collective voice when consulted, whether statutorily or informally, by central government. ⁴ In order to respond to a letter or circular of consultation, they needed to obtain the views of their members. This could take time, especially if the consultation timescale did not coincide with a meeting of the relevant LAA committee. If time was short, the LAA officials might consult a small number of councillors or their officials known to be interested or informed in the subject matter; there was then a risk that the resulting views would not be fully representative.

9.32 An example of the LAAs' role in representing local government interests to central government was the series of regular liaison meetings between the Association of District Councils and MAFF's Meat Hygiene Division, ⁵ although these were not concerned with BSE.

9.33 Apart from these 'generalist' associations, there were also bodies specific to certain services. One of these, the Local Authorities Co-ordinating body on Food and Trading Standards (LACOTS), created in 1978, was involved with BSE in connection with meat hygiene issues. Its remit was:

. . . to promote consistency in the interpretation and application of enforcement regulations throughout the UK.

This remit was extended in 1991 to include, as well as trading standards:

. . . the co-ordination of food safety and hygiene standards as enforced by local authority environmental health services. ⁶

9.34 The Management Committee of LACOTS comprised 12 elected members from the LAAs. Baroness Cumberlege, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health from 1992 until 1997, told the Inquiry that the Chief Environmental Health Officer at DH liaised with local authority environmental health officers through LACOTS as well as through individual councils. ⁷ LACOTS' main involvement with BSE arose in connection with the establishment of the national Meat Hygiene Service, which took over certain local authority responsibilities in 1995.

9.35 Another such body was the Local Authorities National Animal Health and Welfare Panel, which comprised regional experts from England, Scotland and Wales and representatives of the LAAs and of MAFF. Its remit was to act as a forum for the exchange of ideas, consider matters of common interest, facilitate and promote efficient and uniform enforcement standards, liaise with MAFF and other appropriate organisations, and assist in the promotion of training arrangements. ⁸

9.36 Sometimes central government would also consult professional bodies, of which the most relevant to BSE was the Institution of Environmental Health Officers (IEHO), now the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH). The CIEH covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland and describes itself as:

. . . a professional and educational body, dedicated to the promotion of environmental health and to encouraging the highest possible standards in the training and work of environmental health professionals. ⁹

9.37 It was, for example, consulted about the SBO Regulations in 1989. ¹⁰ In oral evidence, Mr Nicholas Hibbett, a local authority Senior Principal Environmental Health Officer who sat on the Institute's Food Committee, explained the particular perspective it would bring to such consultation:

. . . the [local authority] associations were generally looking more at the implications to local authorities in terms of extra costs, whereas the Institution was trying to provide assistance and guidance to our members in the way they actually carried out their duties. ¹¹