Caroline Spelman refuses to deny plans to slash environmental regulations

The environment secretary, Caroline Spelman, has refused to deny that the Cabinet Office is proposing to rip up of thousands of pages of environmental regulations and guidance as part of the government’s “red tape challenge”.  This proposal is causing deep concern among green MPs and campaigners.  It follows the cutting of planning regulation guidance from 1,000 pages to just 50 pages.  The red tape challenge on environmental regulations included all existing rules including those protecting against air and water pollution, industrial discharges and noise.  According to a Guardian analysis, 97% of the responses on the red tape challenge expressing an opinion in the “air pollution” and “biodiversity, wildlife management, landscape, countryside and recreation” categories demanded no changes or stronger protection for the environment. 


Environment secretary says she was not at the meeting where cuts to red tape were allegedly proposed

  • guardian.co.uk
  • The environment secretary, Caroline Spelman, has refused to deny that the Cabinet Office is proposing to rip up of thousands of pages of environmental regulations and guidance as part of the government’s “red tape challenge”.The proposal, revealed by the Guardian, is understood to be led by Oliver Letwin and is causing deep concern among green MPs and campaigners.It follows the cutting of planning regulation guidance from 1,000 pages to just 50 pages, which sparked a national outcry last year. According to a well-placed source, Letwin allegedly told senior environment officials at a meeting on 12 January that the planning proposals showed how the cutting of guidance could “work very well” and said he wanted the same for environmental regulations.Under sustained questioning about the proposal from MPs including Caroline Lucas and Zac Goldsmith at a select committee meeting on Wednesday, Spelman said: “I am not in a position to confirm or deny the story. I was not at the meeting.”

    Goldsmith said Letwin’s proposal was causing “huge concerns”. Spelman said the Cabinet Office was the lead department on the red tape challenge and it was now considering its response on environmental regulations.

    Spelman told the environment audit committee that the purpose of the red tape challenge was to reduce the burden of regulation on businesses while preserving the purpose of the regulation.

    Lucas said: “I don’t know which is more worrying – the fact that Letwin has reportedly proposed slashing all environmental guidance so it fits into a 50-page document, or that the secretary of state for the environment appears to have had no knowledge of it. If the red tape challenge is to be a genuinely consultative process, the government must listen to what the vast majority of people responding to the consultation are actually saying – that they value laws to uphold environmental protection, and do not want to see them ripped up.”

    “Spelman had every opportunity today to deny rumours that the government is planning to tear up the laws that protect our health and environment, and replace them with 50 pages of meaningless guidance,” said Craig Bennett, director of policy and campaigns at Friends of the Earth.

    “This would be the environmental equivalent of taking the complete works of Shakespeare and summarising it as a tweet.”

    At the 12 January meeting, Letwin met senior officials from the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) along with representatives from the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England.

    According to the Guardian’s source, he told officials he wanted all environmental guidance replaced with a single 50-page document just as the government is doing with planning .

    The proposal was apparently met with “disbelief”. Defra and the Cabinet Office declined to comment on the meeting but the EA told the Guardian: “The meeting was about simplifying advice to business about environmental regulation and was positive.”

    The red tape challenge on environmental regulations included all existing rules including those protecting against air and water pollution, industrial discharges and noise.

    It also included protection for wildlife, landscapes and recreation. The website states: “We have to make sure that our … environmental regulations are not strangling businesses and individuals with red tape.”

    It asks visitors, among other questions: “should we scrap them altogether?”

    However, according to a Guardian analysis, 97% of the responses expressing an opinion in the “air pollution” and “biodiversity, wildlife management, landscape, countryside and recreation” categories demanded no changes or stronger protection for the environment. 

    Tom Burke, veteran environmentalist, previous adviser to Conservative environment secretaries, and now working for Rio Tinto, said: “This report [of the Letwin meeting] is consistent with a complete hostility to the environment, based on the misapprehension that the environment regulations get in the way of growth – which they don’t and there is no evidence that they do – and the mistaken belief that the British people want to choose between the two, which they don’t.”

    Some business leaders, including Neil Bentley, the deputy director general of the CBI, have also spoken out against environmental deregulation, following attacks on regulations such as the EU habitats directive by the chancellor, George Osborne.

    “Environmental regulation doesn’t have to be a burden for business. Framed correctly, environmental goals can help our economic goals – help start new companies and generate new jobs and enrich us all,” he said.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/02/caroline-spelman-environmental-regulation


    Red Tape Challenge

    The Cabinet Office’s page on the Red Tape Challenge, in relation to Air Pollution is at http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/environment/air-quality/

    It states:

    Air quality

    These regulate pollutants released into the air.

    They include provisions on smoke control areas, asbestos pollution and the Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme. They also include EU and domestic provisions setting annual limits for emissions of certain pollutants, and setting standards for concentrations of pollutants in outdoor air.

    You can find all 14 regulations that relate to air quality below to the left. ( see page )

    Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

    • Should we scrap them altogether?
    • Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
    • Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
    • Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
    • Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
    • Should they be left as they are?

    For example, you might consider whether the Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 could be combined with the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 to minimise the burden on compliant businesses and local authorities by streamlining and simplifying the current local air quality management system, and to improve alignment with EU requirements.

     (You can comment on the Red Tape Challenge website).

     


     

    Red Tape Challenge

    he Cabinet Office’s page on the Red Tape Challenge, in relation to Noise and Nuisance is at   http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/environment/noise-and-nuisance/

    It states:

    Noise and nuisance

    These regulations aim to limit the impacts from noise, other nuisances such as litter and dog fouling; and reduce the effects of noise from roads, railways and airports. In some cases the regulations include provisions to issue fixed penalty notices, and require authorities to conduct reasonable investigations.

    You can find all 25 regulations that relate to noise and nuisance below to the left. ( see page )

    Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

    • Should we scrap them altogether?
    • Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
    • Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
    • Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
    • Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
    • Should they be left as they are?

    For example parts of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are largely unused, perhaps you think they can be scrapped.

     (You can comment on the Red Tape Challenge website).

     


    see earlier

    Damian Carrington article in the Guardian

     

    Environmental protection rules may be headed for government shredder

    Oliver Letwin wants all guidance covering pollution, wildlife, and waste more replaced with one 50-page document, source says, as is happening to planning rules

    On 12 January, cabinet office minister Oliver Letwin met senior officials from the department of the environment along with representatives from the Environment Agency and Natural England and made a startling proposition. Letwin told them he wanted all environmental guidance replaced with a single 50-page document, just as the government aims to do with the 1,000 pages of planning guidance.

    That is the story told to me by a well-placed source. I have tried to uncover more details, but have met with a brick wall, surrounded by stony near-silence and topped with a few barbed comments. I understand a leak inquiry has been initiated since I started asking questions.

    This is not surprising. His proposal was met with disbelief, I’m told. Letwin, it appears, is living in another world having apparently told the meeting that the planning proposals showed how the shredding of guidance could “work very well.” The public uproar over the planning proposals suggests otherwise.

    I asked both Defra and the Cabinet Office for more information on the meeting. Their entire response is this: “We never comment on whether internal meetings have or have not taken place.”

    This is poor, given that the Environment Agency had already confirmed to me that the meeting had taken place. A spokesman said: “The meeting was about simplifying advice to business about environmental regulation and was positive.”

    So there was a meeting and it was about “simplifying” environmental guidance. It was prompted by the government’s Red Tape Challenge(RTC), which has now consulted the public on environmental regulations and guidance, with Defra is expected to respond soon.

    Has Letwin, finger on the popular pulse, has detected a huge groundswell of public opinion ready to unleash a torrent of common sense and wash away all that loathsome red tape? A few minutes on theenvironment section of the RTC website gives you the answer: a deafening no.

    The site attempts to prime the pump. “We have to make sure that our … environmental regulations are not strangling businesses and individuals with red tape.” The first question then posed to readers is: “Should we scrap them altogether?”

    But when you read the comments posted, the vast majority span the range between outrage and indignation that the “greenest government ever” is even considering scrapping the rules protecting the enviroment. Many call for stronger regulation, not less.

    The first of the eight categories is “Air pollution”, which attracted 108 comments. Of these just 8 (7%) suggest any change at all. The rest protest at the exercise, saying, for example: “I cannot imagine how any government of a civilised country really thinks that watering down the legislation about air quality is a good thing.” The other categories show the same strong sentiment.

    So if the public seem to want the opposite of what the government is proposing, why is it proceeding? The obvious answer is economic growth. Letwin’s proposal is “very plausible because deregulation is their only policy for growth”, one source told me.

    Tom Burke, veteran environmentalist, past adviser to Conservative environment secretaries, and now working for Rio Tinto, agrees: “This report [of the Letwin meeting] is consistent with a complete hostility to the environment, based on the misapprehension that the environment regulations get in the way of growth – which they don’t and there is no evidence that they do – and the mistaken belief that the British people want to choose between the two, which they don’t.”

    He adds: “The financial crash was due to deregulation, the government now has a very tricky problem on breast implants due to regulatory failure and the soaring whiplash injury claims are due to the deregulation of lawyers. Who are the government doing this for?”

    Chancellor George Osborne answered this question in his autumn statement by accusing the implementation of the EU Habitats Directive, which protects wildlife, “placing ridiculous costs on British businesses”. He added: “We shouldn’t price British business out of the world economy. If we burden them with endless social and environmental goals – however worthy in their own right – then not only will we not achieve those goals, but the businesses will fail, jobs will be lost, and our country will be poorer.”

    This is far from the first attack on environmental protection from this government. The frontline agencies, Natural England and the Environment Agency, have had their budgets slashed and are losing thousands of staff. The “bonfire of the quangos” in 2010 saw the demise of the Sustainable Development Commission and bodies covering renewble energy, pollution, pesticides, cycling and integrated transport. The Carbon Trust and Energy Savings Trust have been cast adrift, with no core funding.

    Like planning debacle, where there is no evidence that planning red tape holds up developments, no evidence has been presented that environmental regulation and guidance is doing more than protecting people and places from harm and giving clarity to businesses on how they can operate responsibly.

    No doubt there are a few outdated regulations, and they should be scrapped of course. But that does not require the shredding of all guidance. Businesses should be encouraged to thrive by developing sustainable goods and services fit for the 21st century, not by cutting costs through a return to pumping their waste into rivers and the air. As I have written before, smart regulation that corrects market failures can both drive growth and do social good.

    I hope I never hear of Letwin’s indecent proposal again, and that it dies of shame in a dark corner of Whitehall. We will see.

    In the meantime, I’ll give the last word to a commenter, R K Joyner on the RTC site: “Regulation is supposed to be designed to prevent the occurrence of identified undesirable/hazardous consequences of actions by individuals or groups. By all means carry out a study relating desired outcomes to actual outcomes, a process that should be ongoing in any case. The ‘Red Tape’ premise is pejorative dogma rather than enlightened politics, as we are supposed to believe.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/jan/25/environment-regulation-pollution-red-tape