Category Archives: Whitehall

Why the Tories have only themselves to blame for not reining in BBC excesses

Posted on by

Jeremy Hunt : Playing a blinder in making sure the public don't know too much. Pic Courtesy: The Guardian

Remember the great fuss from the Conservatives on how they were going to hold the BBC to account, expose those mega salaries paid to Graham Norton and Jeremy Paxman and make sure the taxpayer got the best value for their money from the BBC.

Well if you beleive  culture secretary Jeremy Hunt and Lib Dem culture spokesman Don Foster, it will be all happening from next year in the new cash frozen agreement to fund the BBC. He has spent the last year telling us about his success in allowing Parliament’s National Audit Office the right to launch any inquiry it likes into whether the BBC is value for money.

To quote him directly: “It is right that licence-fee payers have confidence that the BBC is spending money wisely, so I am pleased that the NAO now has the right to full access to BBC information. Its new power to decide which areas of activity to scrutinise will increase transparency while maintaining the BBC’s independence.”

In fact this statement is the worst kind of spin and churnalism. The hilarious fact is that the national papers that were critical of the BBC, the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph plus for that matter the Huffington Post website  ( see it here http://huff.to/vDq6y5 ) fell for the whole thing, hook line and sinker.

How do we know this to be true? Well reluctantly after both the NAO and culture ministry had refused to reveal it,  all the correspondence between the remarkably named Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, Jeremy Hunt and the Chris Patten, chairman of the BBC Trust and his predecessor Sir  Michael Lyons, were released under a  Freedom of Information request to Exaro News, the new investigative website I work for. You can see  the two detailed factual articles at http://www.exaronews.com/ .

What they reveal is that Amyas – the nearest person we have in Britain to ” Mr Taxpayer” was engaged in a bloody war of attrition with the BBC and Mr Hunt on behalf of you, the licence fee payer, to get proper unfettered access to the BBC and that he lost.

At one stage he was extremely fed up.  In Whitehall language he wrote, ” “I am concerned that audit access that depends on continuing agreement between the government and the BBC rather than on statute leaves important matters unresolved and may mean that, in practice, the coalition’s proposals may not take things much further forward in terms of independent scrutiny of the BBC.”

In even more stark language he said:”“I am disappointed that it remains your view that my reports should reach Parliament via the BBC Trust and secretary of state.” “It raises the possibility that the BBC Trust or the secretary of state could redact material or, indeed, not publish the report.” You can  download all the letters at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport website See http://bit.ly/ujwp60 if you want to trawl through them.

The reason why this public official is so cross is plain to see. Why he might have the right to investigate what he likes, he is shackled by what he can find out. For a start all those BBC stars can protect their deals from public scrutiny because he has no statutory right of access and cannot override the Data Protection Act.  Even the Royal Household is not so well protected from this and the mega salaries, also paid by the taxpayer, and  the rest of Whitehall can be  scrutinised.

Also no other organisation  examined by the NAO can delay the publication of a critical report by running off to the secretary of state.

Hunt also rejected giving the right of the NAO to audit the BBC accounts – something I am told auditors find extremely useful because  throws up very quickly information when money is misspent.

  He told Morse: “I do not intend to give the NAO statutory access. “I am not persuaded that I should require the BBC to appoint the NAO as its external auditor. I do not consider this is a necessary step in ensuring that the government commitment on NAO access is achieved.”

 Finally he put a gun to his head: ” “If we do not reach agreement, the NAO will not have access to the BBC at least until there is another chance to review the agreement in 2016.”

Hunt has played a blinder over this. He convinced the media that he is Mr Good Guy when actually he is a baddie. The trouble is that  it is you, the licence payer, who have been conned. You could tell  him if you want to. His e-mail is jeremy.hunt@culture.gsi.gov.uk.

Grant Shapps: The man killing the public right to expose another Dame Shirley Porter

Posted on by

Grant Shapps: Abolishing the public's right to object

Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, and Grant Shapps, the housing minister, will shortly be publishing the government’s response to their consultation on the rather boring subject of holding councils to account after they have closed down the Audit Commission.

Hidden in this rather dense document is a rather nasty proposal which seems to go against everything they stand for in opening up councils to scrutiny. The ministers are on record in wanting to encourage armchair auditors, more localism, more public rights, openness, you name it.

Eric Pickles is even a  fan of my friend Mrs Angry- a thorny red rose in the side of true blue Barnet Council- much to chagrin of Brian Coleman and his friends.

 So it rather bizarre that top Tory politicians should include a measure to abolish a 150 year old right that brought to light one of the worst scandals in local government.

Dame Shirley: Would have been saved by Grant Shapps. Pic courtesy:busheywood.com

 The exposure of Dame Shirley Porter in the 1990s for the infamous ” homes for votes ” scandal that included ” gerrymandering ” votes by selling council homes in Tory marginal seats was only possible because of a public right to force an auditor to investigate.

As the report says: “Members of the public currently have rights to question the auditor of an audited body about its accounts and raise objections… in respect of unlawful items of account or matters on which the auditor can make a report in the public interest..

“Auditors have only limited discretion to refuse to investigate objections, but the costs of investigating objections, which are recovered from the local public body and, therefore, funded by council taxpayers, can be disproportionate to the sums involved in the complaint, or to the normal audit costs of the local public body.”

This rarely used power is now being scrapped because  as the paper says: “we consider that the rights for local government electors to object to the accounts are both outdated and over-burdensome on auditors, local public bodies and council tax payers.”

So  effectively Pickles and Shapps are saying it is too burdensome  for auditors to expose corruption and certainly not in the interest of local people to have the power to force the auditor to do it. One wonders why ministers are so keen to do this. Are they expecting more corruption? Do they not want the most forensic skilled person – the auditor – to examine accounts but rather as they propose go to lay people like the Information Commissioner and the local government ombudsman to do it? Or is Mr Shapps repealing this measure as a gift to a  secret fellow Tory heroine of his, Dame Shirley?

 I think we deserve to be told. You could try to get answers. Grant Shapps is a great user of Twitter, so you may send a tweet to @grantshapps. Eric Pickles is more old twentieth century and not very techy but he does have an email address, eric.pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk.

 In the meantime I have written a full piece – one of five – on life after the Audit Commission – on the new Exaro News website. The link is  http://bit.ly/n8vRpc .

The American and British time bombs still under Liam Fox and Adam Werritty

Posted on by

Together forever?- Adam Werritty and Liam Fox. Pic courtesy:http://www.parker-joseph

When Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell publishes his report this week on whether  former defence secretary Liam Fox broke the rules over his curious working relationship with ” adviser” Adam Werritty, it may not be the end of the matter.  There is still unfinished business across the pond in the US and there could be a kickback in Britain as well.

To use a metaphor that Mr Fox and his friend might be familiar just as  foot soldiers sent into battle in Afghanistan have to be wary of  the explosive danger of hidden IED’s in Helmand, Fox and Werritty are still in the middle of a minefield where one false step could be fatal.

One reason is that  a blogger from Manchester-Stephen Newton who had been pursuing  Fox and Werrity’s  Atlantic Bridge  Neo Con”charity” in Britain for two years – put a formal complaint into  the  US Internal Revenue Service about its sister organisation in America.

Basically the accusation was similar to the British charity whose organisers have just closed down rather than obey charity rules- that  Atlantic Bridge Inc was not a non-profit educational body which should avoid tax.

In a  cryptic reply, the IRS said it would evaluate the information they had received and decide whether to investigate but would not contact him until the investigation was complete. 

Remarkably ( and perhaps Revenue and Customs should do this here) they said that he might qualify for a financial  whistleblower’s award if Atlantic Bridge was found to be tax dodging.

 The IRS has still to inform Newton about his award  but has made it clear it will never discuss what action it is going to take. See his own website http://www.stephennewton.com/  for his  take.

 The signifance of this  is the US operation is totally bound up with the  British one – to the extent that it funded Liam Fox’ s charity and that some of the people thought to have bankrolled Adam Werritty on his trips with the minister may well be connected. On top of this as Sunny Hundal pointed out on the Liberal Conspiracy website last week, (see http://bit.ly/n53Oye ) they include through the American Legislative Exchange Council  links to powerful arms dealers like the Koch Foundation and the tobacco industry. It also backs the Tea Party. And one has only to look at the Guardian, Observer, Sunday Telegraph and the Times to see how extensive these connections are.

Now ,if and it is still if, the IRS acts against Atlantic Bridge Inc, this is only going to intensify the pressure on the people who have been backing Fox and Werritty and set a whole new trail going in the US ( no wonder the blogger has taken calls from the Wall Street Journal).

Meanwhile in Britain the trustees of the Atlantic Bridge charity have closed it down rather than comply with recommendations from  our own Charity Commission to make it less partisan.  the Commission seemed  to think it had to treat Atlantic Bridge with kid gloves. Indeed  unlike the treatment of the Smith Institute – slammed for links with Gordon Brown – it was almost obsequious in its dealings with a body that had five Tory shadow ministers advising it ( though two, Michael Gove and Chris Grayling can’t remember attending – I hope they take their present paid jobs more seriously!)

The Commission gave the charity months to change its rules – despite a decision that it was partisan which would disqualify it for charity status. Adam Werritty at the time objected to the findings-saying he was ” disappointed” by the ruling.

There was also the small question that five Conservative ministers-Liam Fox,George Osborne, William Hague,Michael Gove and Chris Grayling plus John Whittingdale ( current chair of the culture,media and sport committee) were all members of its advisory board of  what  is now known not to be a properly constituted charity.

 If I was a sharp tax inspector at Revenue and Customs I think I might decided to approach  the accountants of prominent donors like  Tory donor Michael Hintze   ( £47,000 in two years according to Atlantic Bridge Accounts) and see whether the donated money qualified for gift aid-saving tax payments by both the donor and the charity. And then I would claim it back.

Atlantic Bridge also charged unbelievable sums to attend its events -£400 a time and £700 for VIPs- to go to a  reception at the Lanesborough Hotel in Hyde Park Corner to see Henry Kissinger get the Thatcher Medal for Freedom. Luckily under gift aid rules, at least the people going could not get a rebate from the tax authorities. No doubt it was these lavish occasions that encouraged Werritty on his high living vists, funded we now know through his private company.

There is an interesting irony about all this – the resignation will enable Fox and his friend Werritty to continue their lobbying. Journalists should keep an eye on the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments website over the next few months to see what lucrative jobs Fox applies for next.

 Just like the Afghan war, this story will run and run.

Back to the Future: David joins Exaronews Fleet Street’s first investigative news website

Posted on by

From today I have started to put some of my investigations on a new City financed website, Exaronews.

For the first time in my long 40-year-old career I have started to work off Fleet Street in New Fetter lane and my local is El Vinos, where old hacks never die.

Fleet Street today more regarded as a heritage tourist stop where people reminisce about print and hot metal  will now become the venue for  a new cyberspace revolution-the rebirth of detailed investigative journalism on the web. The wheel is turning full circle with a site entirely dedicated to investigative journalism and detailed analysis of government,Whitehall, politics,foreign news and City investigations..

If you register for exaronews you will start getting,free of charge, stories from me examining Whitehall,  ( how £13bn of taxpayers money was qualified)local government  (the government’s plans for the Audit Commision)and the present dispute between the BBC and the National Audit Office. But there will be much more to come. Eventually there will be a charge -not all investigative journalism can be free!

Watch this space and enjoy government, politicians, senior civil servants and City people being brought to account by forensic examination of their policies.The link is http://exaronews.com

Exclusive: Westminster pioneers subsidised housing for higher rate taxpayers

Posted on by

Affordable housing: Now for higher rate taxpayers Pic courtesy BBC

Are you a higher rate taxpayer with a family? Need a three bedroom home convenient for the City and West End but can’t afford the rent charged as oligarchs and Arabs push up prices in Central London?

From next year the Tory flagship council of Westminster is to come to your rescue- they are diverting all their  new  and acquired affordable housing provided by social landlords to help what Ed Miliband, the Labour leader called the “squeezed middle”. This  includes helping  Iain Duncan Smith style Tory households where dad is the sole breadwinner, mum stays at home with the kids, but dad earns enough to put him in the higher tax bracket.

Too bad if you are among the 53 per cent in Westminster earning around £12,500 a year. From next year you are officially too poor to qualify for social housing anymore. You will have to go and live somewhere else.

Don’t believe me. See the table in  new Westminster Council documents, where the figures are revealed.

Table 1: Affordable Rent levelsBeds Sustainable for households (without benefit) with gross incomes*:  Weekly GrossAR range  Current RP rents (including service charges) 
1 £25k-32k(net 18.5k-£23.5k) £135 – £172  £132
2 £27.5-£36k(net £20.5k -£26.6k) £148-£194  £147
3+ £29k-£39k(net £21.5-£29.k) £156-£210  £152+

The  gross householder income figure for three bedroom homes actually exceeds the present 40 per cent tax band which  this year  is £35,001.

Even the document produced by the council’s housing director for  Jonathan Glanz, the Tory Cabinet member in charge of housing admits they might be a problem:

 “It is acknowledged that these rents are not currently affordable to many households with priority, without housing benefit. Income analysis indicates that in the main their incomes are low and significant proportions are benefit dependant.”

An accompanying document adds: “For some larger non working households, Affordable Rent may not be a sustainable housing option given what is currently known about the welfare benefit cap.” In other words The Conservative policy to cap benefits puts the unemployed permanently in the cold.

Even Westminster cannot stomach Grant Shapps 80 per cent market guideline Pic courtesy: Daily Mirror

What is even more amazing is that Westminster is  trying to implement  housing minister Grant Shapps’ plan to make sure housing association charged 80 per cent of market rents. The problem is that market rents are so high in Westminster, that even the Tory flagship authority is having to ignore  the Shapps guidelines. An accompanying document reveals average market rent for a two bed property is now  £564 per week in W1, £440 in the SW1  and £316 in NW8.

Even Westminster realises that to charge over  between £250 and £400 a week would hand over its entire social housing provision to higher rate taxpayers. Good policy for ” we are all in it together” from Mr Shapps. And Westminster’s market rents are lower than neighbouring Kensington and Chelsea and the City of London. Can’t wait for their housing proposals following Mr Shapps lead.

Not surprisingly Labour councillors in Westminster are pretty scathing about this.

Councillor Guthrie McKie, Labour’s Housing Spokesperson said;  “The Council is shifting its housing failures on to the most vulnerable people in our community. Due to its failure to provide sufficient social housing, the Council is doctoring its allocation policy…The Council is hell-bent on turning Westminster into a ‘no go’ area for the poor and low-income families.  These new policies will just add more misery to the lives of thousands of our residents.”

Mr Glanz disagrees: “This attack fails to understand the concept of the new affordable rent model and preys on fears of some of the most vulnerable people. Affordable rent is not a replacement for social housing. It is an entirely separate product for households that are in employment but would otherwise struggle to afford housing at market rents. ”

However this is only half the story. What was Westminster plans to do with its existing council housing is a matter for a further comment.

Lansley’s unhealthy double whammy: What you won’t know or find out about the NHS

Posted on by

Andrew Lansley's unhealthy changes. Pic courtesy:www.bexleymonitoringgroup.co.uk

Update:Department of Health has replied to this blog defending their position on Freedom of Information and cutting statistics – see comments.

While battle rages over the government’s  controversial reforms of the NHS, the Department of Health has sneaked out two toxic  changes that could  seriously damage your health by promoting ignorance and restricting your rights as a citizen.

The two changes appear to be unconnected  but are extremely helpful to new private providers of  NHS medical services. One will limit information the private firms  have to provide under the Freedom of Information Act to patients and relatives, the other will help them by abolishing the collection of health statistics on the services they provide and  the quality of  staff they employ.

The first has been revealed by the authoritative Campaign for Freedom of Information who are rightly demanding that Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, amends the law so patients can be protected. See their letter at   http://bit.ly/q35AsQ .                   .

This is incredibly serious as this example  by their director Maurice Frankel  shows here.

“Suppose there is concern about the use of potentially contaminated medical supplies by hospitals. For an NHS hospital, the FOI Act could be used to obtain details of stocks of the product, the number of doses administered, the numbers of affected patients, the quality control measures in place, correspondence with suppliers, minutes of meetings at which the problem was discussed and information showing what measures were considered, what action was taken, how promptly and with what results.
This level of information would clearly not be available in relation to independent providers treating NHS patients. This would represent a major loss of existing information rights.”

The second comes from a very convoluted consultation exercise launched the day after the August bank holiday and trumpeted by Anne Milton, the public health minister, as a drive against ” red tape”.

This proposes to slash the collection of statistics by the Department of Health by 25 per cent in a rather uneven and unclear way. But it is clear that the aim is to ” minimise the burden” on the NHS and in particular the new private providers.

Half the statistics collected on the NHS workforce – which are used to improve staff training and forecast the need for skilled staff – are to be dropped. The consultation document says: “This will be of significance for non-NHS providers of NHS services as it will determine the minimum workforce information they would be required to provide.”

And also being reduced are the statistics on the very sensitive political area of waiting times, targets for treatments and capacity of hospitals. The paper says: “the content and frequency.. should remain under review so that the right information is provided by the NHS at a sensible frequency and in so doing the burden to the NHS is minimised.”

Collection of  statistics giving the national picture on mental health are being abolished and the collection of statistics on patient safety look like being hived off to a private firm.

The one area that is being improved is cancer statistic collection which seems to be tied to a pledge by David Cameron.

What is particularly disturbing is that despite the document running to 55 pages at no point is a definitive list published of what is being scrapped. See document if you can bear to here:http://bit.ly/npcHmC .

Frankly Andrew Lansley should not be allowed to get away with either of these moves. The Department needs to change its position on the former and come clean on the latter. I suggest that you make your views known to Mr Lansley at his private office at the Department of Health the email address is  mb-sofs@dh.gsi.gov.uk. If  Zetter’s Parliamentary Companion is right his direct e-mail at andrew.lansley@dh.gsi.gov.uk.

Smart riots need smart solutions

Posted on by

Rioter in London: Pic courtesy: Daily Mail

Are we going to fall into a simplistic trap over the riots that gripped London and England this week? So far much debate on the causes, much discussion on bringing the people who did this to book, and a sort of numbness over the horrific and frightening scale of it. But what is the long-term solution and how should we deal with the smart phone savvy generation that perpetuated it?

Up to now the debate has concentrated on making sure the people are punished – from ludicrous calls from one Tory MEP to shoot the rioters on the spot to making sure we fill our overfull prisons and detention centres with every single person who was on the streets. As David Cameron said today: “We will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you, we will punish you. You will pay for what you have done. ”

What of the cost to us the taxpayer of all this. Higher insurance premiums (a £200m pay out is on the way) or taxes running to hundreds of millions to pay for the damage to buildings is now to be followed by a huge bill  for legal costs, extra policing, and jailing the offenders. Remember the cost of  jailing each offender will be more expensive than the daily bill for educating David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Eton. And given the depressing picture of conditions at Wandsworth prison published this week by the Chief Inspector of Prisons,(see http://bit.ly/oEcESH ) much good may it do us.

It is likely that when the rioters emerge from these detention centres and prisons they be more savvy in avoiding detection, have lucrative drug dealing contracts, and learnt from hardened crims new ways to commit burglaries.

Looters in action in London. Pic courtesy ibtimes.com

So what is to be done? I have one suggestion – when people are convicted of damaging a police vehicle, fire engine, a shop and a home, or stealing goods they  should be presented with the bill and ordered to make a contribution to compensate the victim or the service.

Instead of going to prison they will bound over  by the courts to pay back money to victim or store – and  this will be enforced by either direct deductions from their wages or benefits or even from their credit cards if they have any, over a five, and in bad cases, a ten-year period. This would not apply if they had killed or seriously injured anyone where they would go to jail.

In case anyone thinks this is a ” bleeding heart ” soft option I would propose  very tough enforcement to back this up. If they fail to do this they will face – like a suspended sentence – going to jail for the full period of their repayment term, which would be much longer than a normal jail sentence for burglary or criminal damage. This would act as a strong deterrent but fewer people might want to risk going to jail.

Second there is a need to reconnect the alienated rioter with mainstream society. I suggest this is done by making him or her meet the victim, whether a small shopkeeper, the local fire or police station, or the local manager of  the wrecked Tesco’s, Carphone Warehouse or Barclays Bank. Then they might see this is not a victimless crime and that the people who work and live there are human beings with human feelings and their lives are blighted by such actions. The rioters may also want to see where the money is going and could mitigate the bill if they returned some of the stolen goods.

There needs to be a conversation between the community and the rioters not  separate anger among communities and young people themselves about what has happened.

How this can be organised  at a  time of huge spending cuts I do not know particularly when even some of the magistrates courts handling the emergency – such as Westminster – are about to be closed down, but organised it must be.

 Political leaders at Westminster and in town halls across England need to take the lead. Organisations like Victim Support and the probation service, must be able to play a role. There should be a simple way to set up an organisation that could pull this together. Any ideas?

.

Morecambe Bay Cockle Pickers: Does the government want it to happen again?

Posted on by
 

The cockle picker victims of Morecambe Bay: Will cuts mean more to come? Pic courtesy bbc

Remember the tragedy at Morecambe Bay which led to the deaths of at least 21 cockle pickers? The public outcry that followed the exploitation of these Chinese workers led to the setting up of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to protect migrant and other workers from future exploitation.

Since then it  has been very successful in both licensing gangmasters and working together to fight exploitation with other agencies like the UK Border Agency,the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the police and Revenue and Customs. 

A key test case will take place this autumn with the prosecution of  an Oxfordshire dairy farmer, and potentially 18 other farmers, for using unlicensed labour on their dairy farms. Other cases included investigations into shellfish farmers in County Antrim and a successful opposition to a licence being sought through a Facebook friend of a banned gangmaster who exploited Lithuanian workers.

In the last year its inspectors identified 845 workers who had been exploited to the tune of £2.5m, revoked 33 licences, and prosecuted 12 firms. Some 91 per cent of operations identified serious exploitation. Employers who appeal against its decisions have only a 5 per cent chance of success, 95 per cent of appeals are rejected.

Now any further success is being threatened by a triple whammy from the government. The latest annual report ( http://bit.ly/qp7yeo) reveals that in the last year the government is putting their effectiveness at risk.

Eric Pickles abolished funding for gangmaster intelligence

The biggest blow has come from none other than Eric Pickles, the communities secretary. His department abolished funding altogether to the agency from April. This funded work enabled the agency to set up intelligence operations with local councils and funded community enforcement officers. These posts have now gone.

 Then Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, cut funding by five per cent and Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, imposed a Whitehall recruiting freeze which has mean that skilled people have not been replaced.

At the same time the agency which relies on licence fees for the vast majority of its income has been told to freeze fees for two years, presumably to save business money.It is no wonder the agency’s annual report says: ” The authority faces a major challenge in seeking to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable workers with the prospect of fewer resources.” It also gives a lie to the government’s claim that cutting back office staff won’t have any effect. It admits that these cutbacks” may have an adverse impact on the ability to control risk in the future”.

 Under government spending cuts it will be cut again over the next three years as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs  reduces its budget by eight per cent a year. Given it runs on a shoestring budget in Whitehall terms of under £5m a year and employs 89 staff, it seems remarkable value for money.

It would be a serious tragedy if penny-pinching by the government gave the green light to new exploiters to take advantage. If it does at least transparency makes it clear which minister to blame.

Readers top 3,400 for AssetCo, MetPro and green dirty tricks

Posted on by

Last week visits to the site topped 3459 with massive interest in the fate of AssetCo, the collapsing private fire company which owns London’s and Lincolnshire’s fire engines. Two blogs attracted  over 2500  hits. A big number came from the Fire Brigades union (many thanks), but a significant minority are people picking up  the blog from three small investor sites – as speculators wonder whether to dump their shares or throw more money at it. With shares at just 3.50p at the moment the company is little more than junk stock.

A sudden rush on an older blog exposing how the environment ministry has biased its ” red tape” review of green laws and regulations to favour burdens on business at the expense of the benefits of the  law, has attracted over 940 hits. Thanks to environment campaigner, George Monbiot, for retweeting it and attracting extra trade and a  few subscriptions.

Expect now a pause in blogging as I am off  to the tranquil and peaceful delights of the Isles of Scilly for hopefully an accident free holiday ( after my fall there last time!).

Dirty Tricks at the green ministry

Posted on by

The true Conservative green logo: Replace the tree with a belching exhaust pipe.Pic:courtesy auto.howstuffworks.com

Six weeks ago I  had a particularly critical look at the antics used by David Cameron and Boris Johnson to delay tough new air pollution rules to avoid the Mayor having to pay out £300m in fines to the European Union. (see http://bit.ly/f2wB4j)

Now word via Whitehall has come to me  that a recent government initiative to curb ” red tape” to help business is about to be used as a further battering ram by the coalition to undermine  the so called commitment by both parties to a greener Britain.

My old Guardian colleague Allegra Stratton has already exposed the government’s move to incorporate all 278 environmental laws into the review (http://bit.ly/j6eVY6) . And it has  alarmed environmentalists.

Whitehall sources are telling me that the way civil servants in the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been instructed to review the laws is extremely detrimental to green campaigners.

Effectively they have been told to concentrate on the BURDEN green legislation and regulations place on business and ignore the BENEFITS it brings to general health and well-being.

And this is from two ministries, business and energy and climate change , headed by two of  the Liberal Democrats in the Cabinet, Vince Cable and Chris Huhne.

Given the review cover issues like climate change, national parks, wild life protection, waste regulations, to name but a few areas, the only people  thrilled by this will be  libertarian think tanks like the Adam Smith Institute and the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party.

If we pursue this line of argument we would never have bothered with energy conservation, banned lead in petrol ( they  all cost money to business in the short-term) and been quite happy to keep landfill going and see animals and plants become extinct. Luckily some of this stuff – like phasing out landfill , clean beaches and air pollution, depend on  directives from the EU, so even the most brown nosed civil servant in Defra is going to have difficulty telling his political bosses it is OK to forget the benefit to the environment.

And the government seem to have forgotten that not all business will be pleased if it is successful. There are 880,000 jobs in the environment industry dependent on existing regulation.

 As Adrian Wilkes, chairman of the Environmental Industries Commission, points out: “This is a potentially major threat to the UK’s environmental industry, which lives and dies by the regulatory framework. Government intervention is a vital ingredient in the creation of the environmental markets of the future.”

So once again, just like the row over privatising the rest of the forests defeated by the campaigning group 38 degrees, the coalition has put its foot in it. Unless that is, they never really believed in the green agenda in the first place.