Non-economic Regulators:
Duty to Have Regard to Growth
March 2013
Non-economic Regulators: Duty to Have Regard to Growth
Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or release to other parties or to disclosure in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004). If you want information, including personal data that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence.
In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.
The closing date for this consultation is 19 April 2013
Name: / Kate PughOrganisation (if applicable): / The Heritage Alliance
Address: / 10 Storeys Gate, London SW1P 3AY
Please tick a box from the list of options below that best describes you as a respondent. This allows views to be presented by group type.
Local authority
Professional body or association
Individual
Business
Trade association or other business representative group
x / Charity or social enterprise
The Heritage Alliance is the umbrella body for 89 independent heritage bodies in England.
Other (please specify)
Completed responses should be returned to:
Better Regulation Delivery Office
FAO Naomi Youngberg
The Axis
10 Holliday Street
Birmingham
B1 1TG
Email:
Question 1:
Should primary legislation be used to introduce a duty for regulators to have regard to growth and the economic impact of their actions?
Response: No. The Heritage Alliance is concerned that a duty imposed on English Heritage and/or Natural England to ‘have regard to growth and the economic impact of their actions’ doesnot take into account that these two bodies have a regulatory function that relates to non-renewable resources, the historic environment and the natural environment.
The requirement to have regard to the economic consequences (para 1.9) is not qualified by any time scale. The historic and natural environments are unique in bringingshort, medium and long term economic and social benefits to present and future generations, it is difficult to see over what term the impacts might be measured.
The strong reference to sustainable development in the National Planning Policy Framework is far more appropriate. The Rt Hon Greg Clark’s foreword states:
- The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development.
- Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don’t mean worse lives for future generations.
Economic considerations are one of the three strands of sustainable development, so the proposed legislative duty to consider only the impact of actions on growth flies in the face of the fundamental principle of the Government’s new National Planning Policy Framework.
English Heritage’s own commitment to sustainable development is confirmed in the Management Agreement 2013-15 between English Heritage and Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport (31 January 2013):
The Government’s priorities for English Heritage are:
English Heritage promotes sustainable development within its own organisation and generally through its advice and other activities;
The presumption in favour of sustainable development which balances economic, social and environmental needs is a better national strategy than measuring only the support either of these two bodies might make to business growth.
Question 2:
Is there an alternative means by which these objectives, described in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.6 above, could be achieved?
Response:
Protecting the historic environment brings huge economic, social and environmental benefits. English Heritage is a very obvious example of a non-economic regulator achieving protection and prosperity simultaneously (para 1.8).Regulation ensures that the long term benefit of these capital assets is not squandered for short term commercial gain.
Deregulation can help support growth to a certain extent. The Heritage Alliance has supported the streamlining of the planning system and the heritage protection regime to give owners and developers more certainty and to create a regulatory environment more conducive to growth.
Positive messages about the value of our national heritage can also support growth. Decisions and guidance by English Heritage and local authorities have considerable impact on economic development through leisure, retail, tourism, employment via repair and maintenance and in particular the small local businesses that form the mainstay of that part of the construction industry. Publications such as Constructive Conservation - Sustainable Growth for Historic Places (English Heritage, March 2013) show the many ways in which historic buildings can contribute to job creation, business growth and economic prosperity.
Government policy impacts on the historic environment via DCMS, CLG, HMT, DEFRA, DECC. We refer to the Government’s Statement on the Historic Environment for England 2010 which says
Aside from its inherent cultural value, the historic environment has an important role to play in helping Government achieve many of its broader goals. It can be a powerful driver for economic growth, attracting investment and tourism, and providing a focus for successful regeneration.
Promoting the potential of the historic environment for supporting growth by example and guidance is preferable to a statutory duty.
Question 3:
Do you agree that the duty should be complementary to existing duties?
Response:No. If the duty to have regard to growth has statutory status it is difficult to see how it could be complementary to existing duties. Para 2.9 suggests that a duty to have regard to growth would create a means of challenging regulator’s decisions and require proof of compliance, a process that would bring the planning system to its knees as well as add significant costs.
The presumption in favour of sustainable development offers a better criterion for decision making.
Question 4:
Should the duty be principles-based, for regulators themselves to interpret and apply to their operations, or should it also specify the manner in which economic growth should be supported?
Response: No, whatever the way the duty is framed, we do not think that a balance between present and future protection and prosperity can be achieved by beingso prescriptive.
Question 5:
Do you think that guidance in how to implement the proposed growth duty would be useful? If yes, please provide examples of what it should cover.
Response: No. A one-size-fits-all guidance would be inappropriate.
Question 6:
Do you agree that the measurement and monitoring mechanisms proposed above, allied to those of the revised Regulators’ Compliance Code, would be adequate for this purpose? If not, please provide details.
Response:It is difficult to see how measurement and monitoring mechanisms could be used to capture all the economic, social and environmental benefits of English Heritage’s impacts on the historic environment over time.
It is not clear if the proposed duty would apply to some or all the activities English Heritage undertakes or those that are part of a regulatory system.Behavioural change is particularly difficult to assess.
Before any such measurement could begin, a robust baseline data needs to be established which measure all impacts including the benefits of regulation. The Heritage Alliance would welcome the development of indicators by the Treasury to measure the impact that the proper care and investment in heritage has on such things as tourism, regeneration, social cohesion and so on.
Question 7:
Do you agree that the duty should in principle apply to all non-economic regulators?
Response: No. For the above reasons the Alliance considers that where non-renewable resources are concerned, the duty to have regard to growth is inappropriate for English Heritage.
Question 8:
Should the Pensions Regulator be included in the scope of the growth duty?
Response: no comment.
Question 9:
Do you feel that a growth duty would reduce costs to business and remove or address barriers to growth?
Response: We do not consider that a growth duty on English Heritage would reduce costs and remove or address barriers to growth.
Question 10:
How would you envisage a regulator’s actions changing as a result of a growth duty? Please consider this in light of evidence presented above, and/or with reference to other situations where regulator actions impacted a company or industry’s ability to grow.
Where possible, provide a monetary indication of likely impact of a successfully operating growth duty on a company or industry.
Response: No comment for reasons above.
Question 11:
Is there any evidence that this will add significant burdens to regulators and why?
Response:
Monitoring the impact of English Heritage’s actions on growth would not be feasible.
© Crown copyright 2013
You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. Visit write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email .
This publication is also available on our website at
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to:
Better Regulation Delivery Office
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
5th Floor, Abbey 1
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET
Tel: 020 7215 1191
If you require this publication in an alternative format, email , or call 020 7215 1191.
URN:13/684RF
1