Member News
15th March 2011
The British Retail Consortium asks whether last minute withdrawal of some health NGOs from the Public Health Responsibility Deal removes its relevance.
Today (Tuesday) marks the launch of the Public Health Responsibility Deal – a flagship policy for the government and a landmark example of industry, government and NGOs coming together to tackle a complex social issue. But does the last minute withdrawal of some health NGOs effectively remove its relevance?
The British Retail Consortium (BRC) has engaged from the outset. Voluntary agreements are not new to us. We have led on work with customers, suppliers and the four UK governments on issues such as the withdrawal of incandescent light bulbs and carrier bag reduction.
Our major food members have signed up to commitments on providing similar calorie information for food eaten out as is already provided for food in the home, increasing awareness of alcohol unit labelling and reformulating food to reduce salt even further. They have responded to calls for action across a wide range of issues. Inevitably, not everyone has got everything they want.
So why did some NGOs rubbish the deal before it had even been launched?
The government has said that responsibility deals, not regulation, are an essential tool in bringing together all parties to deliver public policy. Being clear about the benefits and limitations from the outset is essential. Key points for all parties to remember are:
1. Any responsibility deal must be within the law (such as Competition law) and supported by clear evidence of need. Pricing cannot be discussed. Assertions and wish lists should not be entertained.
2. For businesses that sign up, responsibility deals effectively become legislation. Compliance is measured and inevitably will be widely reported. Implementation and evaluation must not impose substantial costs or bureaucracy.
3. Responsibility deals can showcase good work, but there is a risk they become 'unfair'. It will always be the same conscientious firms which sign up while irresponsible competitors are free to ignore them. Sometimes, regulation is needed to level the playing field.
4. Responsibility deals must not bring in additional requirements without looking at existing regulatory burdens. A crowded landscape, such as waste, cannot accommodate further complexity.
5. Responsibility deals should not replace regulation just so the government can avoid its 'one in, one out' rule. Better regulation principles must apply.
Based on the new responsibility deal, the BRC recommends the government reviews the process and outcome before replicating the approach elsewhere. Lessons can be learnt to build on the positive aspects of this process and ensure all parties understand what participation means. We believe this will add to their value in delivering successful and proportionate changes to public policy.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.