UKH

Info below via RSPB says it all. You can go to the official government website and let them know that you think scrapping so-called environmental "red tape" is unacceptable.

Changing the legislation won't just threaten nature conservation interests in National Parks and the wider countryside - it also has the very real danger of overturning access to crags and mountains too. So it has the potential to impinge detrimentally on every single user of UKC.

The Coalition have already shown they don't get public sentiment on issues such as this when they tried to flog off Forestry Commission land: it's important that they know once again they shouldn't play fast and loose with the special bits of the countryside and uplands.

RED TAPE CHALLENGE
"The ‘Red Tape Challenge’ represents an unprecedented move by the Coalition Government that puts all of our wildlife and special places under threat. If this move succeeds, then other governments across the UK may ‘try it on’ too.

In all, 278 pieces of environmental legislation and regulations are included in this review of so-called “red tape” – including crown jewels like the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the Climate Change Act. This exercise callously labels vital and hard won environmental protections and safeguards as mere bureaucracy, and boldly states its ambition to scrap as many of them as it can get away with.

For over 120 years the RSPB has been at the forefront of campaigning for better laws to protect birds and wildlife, habitats and special places. We’ve already won the argument for these laws (sometimes more than once) and over the years we have seen the positive impact they have had.

We cannot let this go unchallenged. Please step up for nature and support our campaign to secure the future of this essential legislation.


http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity-w...

In reply to Colin Wells:

These single issue lobby groups need to learn to read or show a bit more respect to their members intelligence.

This is about much more than just scrapping rules. It's about working out which ones to keep and whether or not we can simplify the bureaucracy around them.

As a country we pay for too many paperpushers that would be unemployable in the real world to harass working businesses and this revierw is long overdue.

In reply to timjones:


Yes, I agree. The RSPB pitch is a dishonest misrepresentation. The OP says: "This exercise callously labels vital and hard won environmental protections and safeguards as mere bureaucracy, and boldly states its ambition to scrap as many of them as it can get away with."

This is wrong, and not what the exercise is about, which is about sorting out good regulation from bad regulation; and it is entirely appropriate that a government ask people's opinion on this. From the intro to the government website:

"Good regulation is a good thing. It protects consumers, employees and the environment, it helps build a more fair society and can even save lives. ..."

"This website is for you to tell us which regulations are working and which are not; what should be scrapped, what should be saved and what should be simplified."

So, by all means, tell the government what you like about environmental regulation. But don't do so in the dishonest manner of the RSPB.

In reply to Coel Hellier: The government has done itself no favours in this regard by calling it the 'red tape challenge' though has it? The terminology 'red tape' is used exclusively to refer to unnecessary bureaucracy so there is a very clear implication that everything they've put up for review is in some way troublesome.

What is so wrong with having complex legislation to deal with complex issues? Perhaps it's worth putting the time in to enforce these laws precisely because of what's at stake. As one of the bodies which has been at the forefront of trying to take a step forward every time they're pushed three steps back I think the RSPB have earned the right to be disgusted at this move. Every single piece of legislation will have gone through endless rounds of reviews before being passed, so why does that work need repeating? And if it's just a case of simplifying the laws, that doesn't really require a public consultation or the use of the dismissive 'red tape' label. They aren't asking which regulations should be strengthened are they? The agenda is pretty clear.

In reply to Coel: Have you read the website?

"Once you’ve had your say, Ministers will have three months to work out which regulations they want to keep and why. But here’s the most important bit – the default presumption will be that burdensome regulations will go. If Ministers want to keep them, they have to make a very good case for them to stay."

The whole exercise is geared towards businesses. The government are making it quite clear that they consider legislation such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act to be red tape which impinges on business interests. Oddly enough, I don't think the best course of action for legislating to protect the environment is putting business needs first. Do you?? Do you honestly believe we'll save habitats and species, or cut greenhouse gases, by prioritising economic interests over others?


I'd prefer they didn't start by calling it red tape and end by saying anything which 'ministers' (NOT, you'll note, 'the public') don't want to keep, will be axed.

In reply to Alyson: well said and very well highlighted. I suspect that a whole raft of environmental, H&S & discrimination legislation will be targetted.

Examining things is all well and good, but i think we've seen a flavour of what this particular government would like to bite into. And it's green....

In reply to Coel: Agreed that revisiting legislation from time to time but this exercise isn't being presented like that, its being pushed as a chance to scrap anything that seen (by whom ?) as being a bit of a nuisance. Its also a bit disingenuous as much of this legislation is linked to EU or international obligations. For instance the Wildlife & Countryside Act of 1981 is the main UK mechanism for the 1979 EU Birds Directive & the 1992 Habitats Directive, plus obligations under eg the Ramsar Convention, the Berne Convention & the Convention on Biological Diversity

In reply to Coel:
On the 'red tape challenge' website.
On the aforementioned website where they have published a list of regulations they are calling 'red tape' which they say affect industry. They are consulting on which ones should remain. The website is quite clear that this is about the effect on different industries. Would you like me to quote it for you or are you ok to read it yourself?

Do I need to say it a third time?

Coel, I know you're a very intelligent person so I can only presume you're being deliberately disingenuous. This isn't an exercise in judging economic activities against environmental criteria, it is VERY SPECIFICALLY an exercise in weighing up environmental legislation against how it affects industries and business. If you wish to carry on pretending it's something different, that's your call.

In reply to Alyson:

Try reading the whole site properly. Instead of merely focusing on the bits that narrow minded single issue groups steer you to.

"This site is designed to promote open discussion of ways in which the aims of existing regulation can be fulfilled in the least burdensome way possible. The presence of a particular regulation or law on this website should not be read as implying any intention on the part of the Government to remove that regulation or law from the statute book. The purpose of this exercise is to open government up to the public."

In reply to timjones: Yes I have read that, thank you. It is two paragraphs below the one where they state that 'the default presumption will be that burdensome regulations will go' and on the same page as the bit where they say that regulations 'have hurt business, and done real damage to the economy'.

The paragraph you have very kindly cut and pasted does absolutely nothing to change the aims, as they have already been stated. It merely says 'we haven't decided which ones yet' which seeing as they are currently consulting, is exactly what one would expect them to say. We still have a situation where legislation designed to protect our environment is now being judged on whether it is a burden to businesses. Sorry.

In reply to Alyson:

In a mish mash of rules and regulations that have been brought in over a great many years there has to be room to ease the red tape involved in compliance by industry and inspection/enforcement by government without compromising the aims of the legislation. It is both unwise and shortsighted to simply state that nothing should change when changes that improve the efficiency of the process could potentially benefit business, governement/taxpayers and wildlife.

In reply to timjones: Can you offer an example of how any piece of environmental legislation can be made easier to comply with while at the same time giving the exact strength of protection it gave before? And can you tell me why business interests should be the criteria on which we decide whether or not to do away with laws designed to protect and conserve our wildlife?

In reply to Alyson:

>> Where do they make that clear?


That's a vague answer. Let me say how I interpret that website. It is giving a list of a very large swathe of regulation, and is *asking* which ones *we regard* as good and necessary, and which ones *we regard* as unnecessary and burdensome "red tape" that should be removed. *That* is the "red tape challenge", asking us to *indentify* the unnecessary red tape within the regulations. It is *not* saying that every single piece of regulation is mere "red tape".


Yes, I would really like you to quote for me the bit where the government say that *they think* "the best course of action for legislating to protect the environment is putting business needs first" and that "we'll save habitats and species, or cut greenhouse gases, by prioritising economic interests over others" -- which is what you accused them of.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

NB, A couple of posts by me seem to have been moderated away, presumably because I posted them when not logged in as a registered user, though I did give my name so they weren't anonymous. Just for the record, I didn't log in because it seems something about the site login has recently been changed (cookies or something?) and it won't let me log in from my lap top (I hadn't changed anything on my laptop).

In reply to Alyson:


The emphasis there being the word "burdensome".


And that is followed by: "And it’s done harm to *our* *society* too." and it is preceded by "Good regulation is a good thing. It protects consumers, employees and the environment, it helps build a more fair society and can even save lives."

Those make quite clear that it is *not*, as you falsely claiming, merely about business interests. As does the very next sentence: "When people are confronted by a raft of regulations whenever they try to volunteer or play a bigger part in their neighbourhood, they begin to think they shouldn’t bother."

All along you misrepresent on this point! You say: "they have published a list of regulations they are calling 'red tape' which they say affect industry." -- you are wrong to say that all regulations listed on that site are being labelled "red tape", and you are wrong to say that the only aspect of concern to them is how they "affect industry".

And you don't help your case when you follow it up with sarcastic points such as "Would you like me to quote it for you or are you ok to read it yourself?" -- when you are the one not reading it in context and are making a very prejudiced interpetation of it. One would think that people would be pleased that they are being consulted in a formative stage of policy.

In reply to Alyson:

An addendum (my added emphasis):

"This site is designed to promote open discussion of ways in which the *aims* *of* *existing* *regulation* *can* *be* *fulfilled* in the least burdensome way possible. The presence of a particular regulation or law on this website should not be read as implying any intention on the part of the Government to remove that regulation or law from the statute book. The purpose of this exercise is to open government up to the public."

Before i start let me just state that I have been lived in the forest of dean all of my life. I was born and raised here and now work in the woods here.

Has anyone taken the tim to look over thet "hard won" legislation? tak for instance that protecting the goshawk. It was introduced at a time when the bird was in a massive state of decline. It prohibits any works within 1/4 mile radius of a nest sight, imposses heavy extreamly heavy penalties for infringments.
Now however, the goshawks numbers have supassed the estimated numeber before decline we are left with sillily stringet rules. It would now sufice to remove these extra regulations and allow them the same protection offered all british birds under the WACA 1981.

On a similar not there are a large number of European Endangered Speicies that would benifit from the extra protection that the goshawk has enjoyed.

I realise that i have stated one example heavily, this is due to my fimiliarity with what i consider an amazing bird. I know of several other speicies offered protection no longer needed due to recovered populations. What has been implimented to protect our declining song birds?

The point i am tring to make is that whilst the origional legislation may have been passed to do good, once the good has been acheived it then redundant. When tis is the case is it not time to strip it away and review what is now needed?

I Know i will catch some flack for this opinion, but the vocies of the people on the ground should be considered. After all has the resaech scientist in a big city university actualy spent time in the countryside noting how their consultations affect our lives and livlyhoods?

It is time for a reveiw of legislation. Just maybe in a more controlled and justified way than this government is offering.

In reply to hopalong: that would involve changing the annexes to legislation rather than the act itself which is already done periodically, although maybe not very well (from memory the Wildlife & Countryside Act lists are reviewed every 5 years but I haven't checked)

And it might surprise you but many 'research scientists' come from, and live in, the countryside. Some are even farmers, foresters, fisherman, etc.

In reply to Coel Hellier: I find it quite amusing that you start by offering me your 'interpretation', selectively quote the bits of the website you like the sound of, then tell me my interpretation is 'biased' despite it being based purely on information on the same website. Your interpretation is unbiased then, one would presume?

Let me try again. I believe that the laws which protect our wildlife, countryside, biodiversity, landscapes and natural environment should SOLELY be judged on whether they are needed, whether they achieve their aims, and a cost-benefit analysis based upon using good scientific data to weigh up their efficacy. As hopalong has stated, situations can change - for the better as well as the worse - and legislation should be able to react to this once the scientific justification is there.

I do NOT believe they should be judged on whether they cause businesses or individuals a bit of a headache because they need surveys/monitoring/enforcement or inconvenient remediation measures. The decision on whether or not a survey is necessary should be based on science, not on the amount of paperwork needed. The default presumption should NOT be that the regulations will be removed if they are "burdensome". Many are burdensome for very, very good reasons.

You can quote me as many passages from the website as you like, it doesn't change the fact that this consultation is wrong in principle, prioritizes the wrong things and in doing so sends a dangerous message about how environmental protection is viewed. I'm sure it is also inconvenient for drug companies to have to put their products through many burdensome tests before they can be used to treat illnesses, but I do not expect to be consulted on whether I think it necessary.

In reply to Alyson:

How would you review old legislation to ensure it still does what was intended without adverse or unintended impacts?

In reply to Alyson:


If your claims are based purely on information on that website then please respond to this part of my previous post: "Yes, I would really like you to quote for me the bit where the government say that *they think* "the best course of action for legislating to protect the environment is putting business needs first" and that "we'll save habitats and species, or cut greenhouse gases, by prioritising economic interests over others" -- which is what you accused them of."


OK, though please note the "cost-benefit analysis" of that. And also note that whether the legislation is needed and whether it is achieving its aims is exactly what this website is asking.


Whereas I consider it perfectly reasonable to include all factors in the cost-benefit analysis. Indeed, that is inevitably going to be the case. For example the extent to which land is set aside for environmental protection is inevitably a balance of different factors and interests.


Given that the consultation is much broader than environmental protection, and that the quotes from the web-site that you have objected to are intended generally, I don't see anything wrong with it. I also think that governments should be encouraged to do more of these public consultations, rather than people crying outrage and putting the most negative spin on them.

In reply to Alyson:

It's not just about whther surveys etc are needed it's about ensuring that they are done efficiently if it they are needed. The poeople involved at the sharp end are well placed to off comment on this. Please have the civility to allow them this rare opportunity to do so. Put your comments in and allow others the frredom to do the same instead of trying to exclude their views to suit your agenda.

In reply to peterd:

I would ask for feedback from the people affected by the daily implementation of it - as this has done - then I would go back to the scientists and conservationists and discuss whether the same aims could be achieved any differently. If the answer is no, then I would have to continue to favour the old legislation.

That is not what's happening here. Conservation bodies are rightly kicking up a stink about it because that essential second half of the process is being missed out. The government has clearly stated that once feedback has been given, ministers - not scientists and not conservation professionals - will decide which laws to remove. They have also stated (I am beginning to get tired of typing this tbh) that the default position is that legislation causing a burden will be scrapped.

This may or may not lead to the loss or weakening of environmental protection, nobody yet knows. The point is that instead of being based on scientific input, conservation expertise, the needs of threatened species/habitats or a default presumption towards the precautionary principle, the decision on how we treat this legislation is being based on whether it is a nuisance to comply with.

This is why I don't agree with the fact that environmental legislation has been included in this review, as it is being conducted.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


pretty much every regulation is burdensome, either because they remove externalities or because the benefit to the individual is over the long term or just lowering probabilities. If they werent then they are unlikely to need them enforcing.

Strange how they seem to have missed the option of increase regulation (although i guess at a pinch you could put it under improve).

In reply to Alyson:

"Once you’ve had your say, Ministers will have three months to work out which regulations they want to keep and why. But here’s the most important bit – the default presumption will be that burdensome regulations will go. If Ministers want to keep them, they have to make a very good case for them to stay."

I suspect that the ministers will be fighting to keep the most useful and valuable legislation that falls within their portfolio and will be using evidence from scientists and conservation bodies in order to do so.

In reply to dissonance:

Regulation has a tendency to increase all the time regrdless of any consultation process ;(

In reply to Alyson:


And fairly obviously any suggestion to look at removing a law will only be the start of a process. And yes, in the end, it will be the government that decides, that's how elected democracies work. You are way overinterpreting the website if you are suggesting that at no time in the process will relevant professionals be consulted.


Unless it can be justified: Their FAQ says: "with the presumption that all burdensome regulations will go unless the government departments can justify why they are needed." In many ways a presumption of removal is a good thing, a reversal of the usual Whitehall presumption for more and more regulation, and a necessary kick-start to getting *any* regulations properly examined. I'm willing to bet that, in practice, after this whole exercise, over 95% of regulation will be untouched and unaffected.


That's a ridiculous interpretation of the web-site, which is actually about sorting out the good, working-well regulation from the poor or working-badly regulation that needs revision or repeal.

In reply to Alyson:

Do you think it a good thing that someone visiting 18 different schools over a term can need to get CRB checked 18 different times simultaneously?

That's a loaded question leading to question 2: Do you think all current regulation is perfect?

That's an equally loaded question leading to question 3: What is so wrong with asking the public which bits of regulation they think need changing or repealing?

I note that you still haven't provided quotes for your early claims that I asked you directly about, despite you kindly offering to go and read the website for me!

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Jeez, AGAIN! This review has clearly stated that it wants to remove bureaucracy. It is including all legislation based on protecting the environment. It has stated that there is a default presumption to remove 'red tape'. It makes quite clear under 'get involved' that it wants feedback from all businesses, across all sectors, and this will feed into the decision. It is asking how the legislation it lists affects economic interests. If complying with a particular directive on, say, bat surveys is proving "burdensome" to companies, it would qualify - under the auspices of this review - as something to be removed. This is what I mean when I say that economic interests are being given priority over other interests. Other interests are not mentioned - not the weight they hold, not the aims they are working towards. Conservation bodies would not be objecting to this review if they formed part of the decision-making process. They don't. It is clearly stated on the website that Ministers will have to make "a very good case" for each piece of legislation THEY want to keep.
With an absolute emphasis on removing as much as possible, and no mention of weighing any of it up against scientific or conservation need.

My point is that the legislation relating to environmental protection shouldn't be there. That is precisely what I am commenting on.


But you're still unbiased, right? I do not believe I am putting a negative 'spin' on anything, I believe I am pointing out the negatives. Is that the same thing? The OP was talking about the environmental legislation specifically, so I am not giving my opinion on the exercise as a whole. But then I think environmental protection is crucially important so yes, I am biased. You don't accord science the same weight in it as I do - that doesn't make you unbiased, it makes you wrong Sorry, I mean different to me.

In reply to Alyson:

No legislation should be exempt from scrutiny. If it's good regulation it will be easy to defend it and retain it. The fact that a regulation relates to the environment is no guarantee that it is good or efficient.

To take your example of bat surveys if there is good science to say that they are working they will remain regardless of how many people say they are burdensome. I'm sure the scientists that make a crust doing bat surveys will be very keen to provide the evidence required to support.

In reply to timjones: Have I said any legislation should be exempt from scrutiny? My problem is with the weight that is being given to the 'burden' of compliance over and above the value of the legislation itself.


Oh, you know that for a fact do you? Because nowhere does it state that the science will be evaluated. Look, I'm not going to make pronouncements on all conservation bodies but the RSPB is made up of intelligent, respected, passionate people. They have worked WITH governments ever since the organisation began and have fought tirelessly - with money donated by the public - for each and every piece of that legislation. They would not object to this exercise if they had been given any indication that objections raised will be fairly and publicly evaluated against conservation aims.


Well it says a very great deal about your attitude that you think conservationists and ecologists are motivated by money. The whole point I'm trying to make is that there are more important things than that, but I guess it's falling on deaf ears.

Ok, in the spirit of a true ukc discussion... I want to know where your evidence is that scientists will be given the opportunity to defend a piece of legislation if, after this review, it emerges that a large corporation finds it burdensome.

In reply to Alyson:


You are simply wrong to say that other interests are not mentioned. Here is the the very first paragraph on the intro to the website: "Good regulation is a good thing. It protects consumers, employees and the environment, it helps build a more fair society and can even save lives. But over the years, regulations – and the inspections and bureaucracy that go with them – have piled up and up. This has hurt business, doing real damage to our economy. And it’s done harm to our society too. When people are confronted by a raft of regulations whenever they try to volunteer or play a bigger part in their neighbourhood, they begin to think they shouldn’t bother."

Now yes, the interests of business and the economy are mentioned, as you say, but other interests mentioned are: (1) consumers, (2) employees, (3) the environment, (4) a fair society, (5) saving lives, (6) society in general, and (7) volunteering. Nowhere do they say that business interests are primary or the only thing being considered.


No, not at all. While "burdensome" is perhaps not the best phrasing they could have chosen, it has connotations of *unduly* burdensome or *inappropriately* burdensome for the benefit it gives, which, if you read the website fairly, is the meaning they are intending. This is clear from sections such as: "This site is designed to promote open discussion of ways IN WHICH THE AIMS OF EXISTING REGULATION CAN BE FULFILLED in the least burdensome way possible."

I'm sorry, but your quotes from this website simply do not amount to them saying "the best course of action for legislating to protect the environment is putting business needs first" or "we'll save habitats and species, or cut greenhouse gases, by prioritising economic interests over others" -- which is what you accused them of.


Very first line of the website intro: "Good regulation is a good thing. It protects consumers, employees AND THE ENVIRONMENT ...".


So in your opinion all environmental protection legislation is totally perfect, working exactly as intended, with no unforeseen disadvantages that could be remedied, and none of it is in any way out of date -- such that it is quite wrong and outrageous for the government to even ask people's opinion on whether these things are so?


Science can give you knowledge and understanding about what is happening environmentally and what the consequences of various policies would be. It cannot tell you what the right policy is, since that comes from the different and competing human desires and interests (commonly expressed as you can't get an "ought" from an "is"). That is why they are consulting people.

In reply to Alyson:


Or they could just be scare-mongering, a common and often successful tactic of single-issue pressure groups.

In reply to Alyson:




Are you suggesting that honest scientists earning a living working for on genuine projects aren't going to use the science to defend their jobs? It's the ones working on marginal schemes and projects with little worth that are going to have problems.


Are you suggesting that DEFRA isn't going to use the sciencem to defend it's work?

In reply to Coel Hellier: So when it comes to the clearest part of the website - the bit where they actually spell out in plain English the process they've got planned - rather than acknowledge what it says, you tell me it's been poorly phrased and therefore means something different. Your argument is now reduced to convincing me that they've got the wording wrong, but I'm still wrong to believe what they say instead of what you tell me they really mean.

Any chance you're looking at this through blue-tinted spectacles Coel?

In reply to timjones:

You didn't answer my question.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

So now what 'could' be happening is entering the discussion is it? Righty ho then. The realms of pure conjecture are some of my favourite realms.

The coalition government 'could' be using this nauseating 'we just want to do whatever you tell us to' pack of lies in order to justify getting rid of important conservation legislation, at the behest of their big business party supporters who are sick of namby-pamby crested newts eating into their profits. By engaging in this sham they can tell us that they only got rid of vital protection because 'we' asked them to when in fact we did no such thing.

Why aren't they consulting us on which regulations we'd like to see strengthened?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
And governments...

In reply to Alyson:


No, I'm merely explaining it to you, in terms of how government actually works. For example when they say: "Ministers" will decide "which regulations they want to keep and why" it does not mean they will not consult with any experts or other relevant bodies.

Anyhow, you've been wrong all along. Your claim was that "economic interests are being given priority over other interests" and that "Other interests are not mentioned ...". Both claims are wrong. Nowhere does it say economic interests are being given priority, and the first paragraph mentions other interests including: (1) consumers, (2) employees, (3) the environment, (4) a fair society, (5) saving lives, (6) society in general, and (7) volunteering.

Thus your claims that the government think that "the best course of action for legislating to protect the environment is putting business needs first" and that "we'll save habitats and species, or cut greenhouse gases, by prioritising economic interests over others" are simply unfounded and based on a highly prejudiced reading of what isn't there.

What is there is the statement: "This site is designed to promote open discussion of ways in which the aims of existing regulation can be fulfilled in the least burdensome way possible." Please note the phrases "the aims of existing regulation can be fulfilled" and the phrase "least burdensome way".

In reply to Alyson:
By engaging in this sham they can tell us that they only got rid of vital protection because 'we' asked them to when in fact we did no such thing.
Your argument has now become "They're a bunch of lying Tory bastards and whatever they say they really just want to harm the environment".

It rather destroys the point of discussing the subject.

In reply to Postmanpat: Lol! Did you miss the fact that I explicity stated I was responding to Coel's wild conjecture by offering the same? Is sarcasm totally lost on you?

In reply to Alyson:

Fair cop! Should concentrate on one thing at a time ...

In reply to Coel Hellier: The wording of the 'red tape challenge' website can be divided into two parts: the parts which are rhetoric and the parts which are an explanation of the process. The rhetoric doesn't carry the weight of a muon if it is not backed up by action. Paying lip service to the environment is not the same as doing positive things to protect it.

Oddly enough, the paragraphs you are pinning your whole argument on are the rhetoric - the bits which imply good and positive things without actually delivering anything, and without giving a statement of intent. Then the paragraphs which give, clearly and unambiguously, a statement of intent, you tell me I am misreading because they 'imply' something different. No, they don't. You tell me I am biased, but you are the one who says the meaningless bits mean something while the meaningful parts imply something else.

You will forgive me then, for not accepting your 'interpretation' of it on this shaky basis.

Elsewhere on the website they proudly tell us about planned regulations they have already done away with - such as a proposal to make sure drivers of HGVs drive in the greenest and most fuel efficient way possible. Are we supposed to see it as a step forward that they are ignoring opportunites to cut down the environmental impact of haulage? Once again, the environmental lip service is at odds with what they actually deliver.

In reply to Postmanpat: Ok, no worries! I was trying to inject a light-hearted note in case innocent passers-by accidentally clicked on this thread and were sent into a coma

In reply to Alyson:


Surely that is a perfect example of the sort of laughable regulation that we are already burdened with and that an unthinking government would continue to impose upon us. A load of absurd redtape creating jobs for the boys in order to enforce a petty regulation aimed at preventing something that is unlikely to be an issue because no sane businessman is going to waste expensive fuel by driving in an inefficient manner.

I can only assume that you have a nice cushy job that shields you from the excesses of such petty regulation.

In reply to Alyson:

Conservation scientists have the opportunity to make representations as part of the consultation.. It is important that they use the opportunity to make considered responses instead of merely encouraging evryone to stamp their foot and shout no.

Compare the RSPBs initial rabble-rousing response to the more considered approach adopted by the BMC. I'm willing to bet that the RSPB through the input of it's practical business owning members and it's own land management experience will be aware of areas where improvements could be made in the enforcement of regulation. They will do more to win the respect of both business and government if they make a considered response instead of this sort of sensationalist approach.

They have the knowledge and experience to make a valuable contribution and they shouldn't waste it.

In reply to timjones:

Ooh, excellent. The realms of assumption! Almost as good as the realms of pure conjecture. Ok <clears throat>...

"... and I can only assume, sir, that you are one of those self-interested people who does not like to let inconvenient things such as environmental protection get in the way of your right to make a large pile of money and invite your friends over to admire it."

In reply to Alyson:

Apologies for the shirty reply. You may be very lucky in your work but there can't be many jobs that won't have been effected by petty regulation in recent years.

I only passed comment because I was amazed that anyone would think that a regulation aimed at forcing HGV drivers to drive in a fuel efficent manner was necessary with current fuel prices or could ever be efficently monitored and enforced. It sounds good in principle but it takes very little thought to expose the flaws in the scheme.

In reply to timjones:

I find it equally amazing that anyone would think either the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 are "petty regulation" which we have been subjected to in "recent years". Because THAT'S what we're really talking about here. Whether you think it is right to assess these key pieces of legislation in terms of 'lets get rid of all this troublesome red tape', and whether you think doing so accords them suitable importance or priority. You do, I don't. No amount of discussion is going to change that.

In reply to timjones:


it depends on what that legislation actually was. Looking around i suspect it was the following one which had the intention of, ermmm, simplifying the regulations by making them consistent.

http://uk.autoblog.com/2010/02/03/hgvs-face-fast-lane-ban/4

In reply to Alyson:

Would you be kind enough to point out where I've named any of those acts as petty regulation?

A minute ago you accused me of making assumptions!

In reply to Colin Wells: Here's a wee news piece from last week on UKH: http://ukhillwalking.com/news/item.php?id=61948

So far the BMC seem more relaxed than some other organisations.

I gather the sole point of the Red Tape Challenge is for Joe Public to have a say. If you exercise that 'right' you could as well argue for the retention of laws you like as for scrapping ones you don't. That's what I'll be doing...

In reply to timjones: Ah, so they're not petty regulations? Thank you. I didn't think so either. But you still think it's ok for them to be judged on petty criteria, which is what this review is doing, and that it is right to lump them in with, say The Enterprise Act 2002 (Bodies Designated to make Super-complaints) (Amendment) Order 2009.

You honestly don't think that undermines their importance?

In reply to Alyson:

That's your judgement of the relative values of different rules. Others may have different priorities. I tghionk it's important that all regulations are reviewed to ensure that they are efficient and workable.

When did you last have cause to consult the Wildlife and Countryside Act? When I looked checked it earlier this year it was a nightmare mess of amendments and variations. It's high time all those amendments were consolidated into a single act, so that those checking the act can do so without constantly cross-checking "amendment Y to schedule X" etc.

Even good legislation needs reviewing to ensure it remains clear, concise and effective. The more important it is the more vital it is that it remains effective IMO. Why would anyone want to cheapen valuable legislation by blocking vital review of it's operation?

In reply to timjones:


which doesnt need public consultation does it? Just a standard every x years update and republish.
Even if you did go for public consultation then the sensible approach would be to put together the draft consolidated version prior, if you feel that the cross references would prove troublesome.

In reply to timjones:

I have already spelled out further up how I believe such legislation should be reviewed; where and how expert involvement should be used - which it isn't in this case, and what the priorities should be when analysing necessarily big and complex statutory instruments designed to protect national interests. Yet somehow you see fit to suggest that it is ME who is cheapening the legislation. What an absolute joke.

I have a feeling you actually agree with me but are reluctant to say it, because the only argument you have is accusing me of the exact opposite of what I've been saying.

In reply to dissonance:

My point was that those who find the act cumbersome can use the red tape review to point this out adn suggest a consolidation. Surel whythat is why the review asks where things could be simplified rather than just saying tell us which acts to scrap?

Businesses that work in sympathy with the environment still need the processes to be as simple and concise as possible and are likely to want to make a positive input into this review.

In reply to timjones:


ah so in order to simplify and save money you are suggesting wasting time and money?
After all if amendments cause a problem then five years down the line you are likely to get the same issue again and this is ignoring all the other acts, if you suggest it for just one.
Surely easier just to stick in a across the board review and update act fully every five years or so.

by the by, can you confirm that HGV regulation which has been scrapped was or wasnt the one which would result in a single set of conditions for HGV rather than age dependant ones?

In reply to Alyson:

If you want to identify the impacts on business it's no use only asking the experts and scientists. Have you ever studied any of the "impact assessments" that these experts produce before legislation is passed. They all to often show a woeful lack of practical knowledge of the industries that the impacts effect.

The problems with this will start if and when the "experts" sit on their hands because they haven't been formally asked to offer their opinions. It's a consultation that anyone can make a constructive input into.

In reply to dissonance:

You're asking the wrong person. Alyson raised it as an example so I would anticpate that she should have the answer at her fingertips, neither of us should need to chase it down.

In reply to dissonance:

This review is out there. We should use the opportunity to comment on it instead of dismissing it as a waste of time and money?

The recent forestry consultation asked some good and relevant questions. It's good to consult on such things but the money was wasted when a cleverly managed no campaign labelled it as a "forestry sell-off" and halted the consultation before it was completed depriving people with considered constructive comments of the opportunity to submit them. I can see a danger of the same thing happening here and that would be a very bad thing IMO.

In reply to timjones:

Now you're doing the same thing again, because at absolutely no point did I suggest 'only' asking the experts and scientists.

It's ok for you to admit that you can't find a reason to disagree with what I've been saying, no one will die if you do.

In reply to timjones:


You stated it was "absurd redtape" and a "petty regulation". bit confused as to how you can decide that without knowing what the regulation actually was?

In reply to Alyson:

I ndo disagree with what you are reading into this review.

Where does it say that experts, scientists, conservation bodies etc are barred from responding?

In reply to Alyson:


I agree, and the phrase "the default presumption will be that burdensome regulations will go" seems pretty clearly part of the rhetoric. Afterall, can you imagine the sheer scale of the task if they were to overhaul 21,000 pieces of regulation all at once? In practice this exercise might identify a very small fraction of those 21,000 as needing overhaul or repeal.


I suspect that your divsion into rhetoric v reality is based on your preconceptions, not on what the website actually says.

In reply to dissonance:

Sorry my mistake for taking it as face value when Alyson stated that it was legislation aimed at forcing HGV drivers to drive in a fuel efficient manner. Can you envisage a simple way of enforcing such an aim?

In reply to timjones:


yes, several one of which is in place on newer vehicles. Hence the discrepancy the proposed regulation would have removed.

In reply to Coel Hellier: This is excellent! Honestly, I couldn't have imagined you would argue black is white but here you are doing just that. Either you don't know what rhetoric is, or you just love an argument too much to let one go! Hats off to you.

"Once you’ve had your say, Ministers will have three months to work out which regulations they want to keep and why. But here’s the most important bit – the default presumption will be that burdensome regulations will go. If Ministers want to keep them, they have to make a very good case for them to stay."

In no possible universe does that count as rhetoric! IT IS THE ONLY PART OF THE WEBSITE WHERE THEY STATE WHAT THEY ARE DOING!

Now the very fact that you persist in firmly denying this to be the case tells me that you are uncomfortable with the ugly truth of it, so I will award you some bonus points for actually feeling that way even if you can't say it.

In reply to dissonance:

If that was the regulation referred to?

However in terms of fuel efficiency the ultimate top speed that you travel at is only a tiny part of overall efficiency and fuel consumption. A simplistic rule that palces a burden on businesses whilst ignoring the bulk of the problem it seeks to address. If you had said that fuel tax encouraged efficient driving you would have been closer IMO but thats not the sort of shiny new rule that makes governments appear more effective than they really are

In reply to Alyson:


Nice touch!

If someone doesn't agree with you, tell them what they think and give them a nice little pat on the back. You should be in politics

In reply to timjones:


You are continuing to wilfully ignore the entire point of my argument about the due processes such legislative reviews should undergo, and whether our priority should be environmental protection, or 'removing red tape' but I no longer really mind because I've just got Coel Hellier to tell me black is white. I think I deserve a coffee and a nice sit down the peace gardens.

I have no doubt whatsoever that your coalition will continue to govern in the manner you clearly wish. By setting your sights so low you are guaranteed to never be disappointed.

In reply to timjones:

its been rejected fairly recently so would guess so.


Of course it doesnt solve all the problems but that really isnt an argument against putting something in place its whether the cost benefit works. I suspect if they had a perfect approach you would be complaining about the even higher cost.
As for burden on business, that depends really on whether you think internalising costs is a "burden" or accurate reflection of the costs incurred.


as plenty of southern haulage companies will tell you, fuel tax is a serious burden since with the size of HGV tanks it allows for a certain competitive advantage.

In reply to Alyson:


I'm not ignoring the entire point of your argument I understand what you are saying and think you are wrong. We need environmental protection that avoids unecessary red tape. Laws that cause unnecessary faff are more likely to get broken and are unduly time consuming to police.


That reads like an admission that you are out to score points rather than debate something that you genuinely care about!


My coalition? Governing in the manner that I wish? I'll never be disappointed? You are a master of assumption!

The world isn't black and white. It's a complex place full of tough decisions.

In reply to Alyson:


Let's take two chunks from that intro:

"Once you’ve had your say, Ministers will have three months to work out which regulations they want to keep and why. But here’s the most important bit – the default presumption will be that burdensome regulations will go. If Ministers want to keep them, they have to make a very good case for them to stay."

"This site is designed to promote open discussion of ways in which the aims of existing regulation can be fulfilled in the least burdensome way possible."

You are saying that that latter bit doesn't mean anything, it's just rhetoric, and they don't mean it. But the first bit is not at all rhetorical and is exactly what they intend.

To me it seems *obvious* that the first bit is just as much rhetoric as anything. I mean, isn't it *obvious* that the result is not going to be 15,000 regulations out of 21,000 all scheduled for repeal over the next two years? Can't you just be a little bit practical and interpret the website with a modicum of sense?

In reply to Coel Hellier: The first quote is what is going to happen. The process they have put in place.

The second quote is telling us how the website has been designed.

So they can design a website which promotes open discussion, then still go away into a back room and remove legislation they decide is burdensome. They can fulfil both of those things at the same time, therefore the second quote is merely rhetoric as it does not necessarily have a bearing on the outcome. It does not deny that useful legislation may be removed without further consultation.

They spend a lot of time and effort and careful wording making it SOUND like something good is happening, without committing to it happening at all. Welcome to the world of spin.

In reply to Colin Wells:
As the owner of a small business involved in manufacturing and exporting I despair of the red tape that surrounds SME's.I have given up trying to comply, it's utterly pointless as in my case there are some 250 documents applying to what I do within the UK and EC.The list is unbelievable and makes your eyes water. I recognised along time ago that I could not even begin to comply as I could literally spend every minute reading those ticking the boxes for somebody to come along and take a totally different view point on the rules.Meanwhile I have a business to run and employees who rely on me for their jobs.Most SME's if you pushed at them take the same view, and get by on a wing and a prayer and just using common sense.

I personally do not believe for one minute that the govt will reduce any red tape, because of for example safety fears. None of the party's have enough guts in them to really tackle this explosion in bureacracy which has taken place over the past 10 -20 years.

In reply to Alyson:


You are just being obtuse, misrepresenting bits and ignoring other bits willfully if they don't fit your preconceptions.

Oh, and by the way, you *still* have not been able to point to anywhere where they say that they think "the best course of action for legislating to protect the environment is putting business needs first" and that "we'll save habitats and species, or cut greenhouse gases, by prioritising economic interests over others" -- which is what you accused them of.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Obtuse:
a. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
b. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity
c. Not distinctly felt

Err, thanks very much. We're onto insults now are we? I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm just disagreeing with you. I have given a very clear breakdown of the sentences you quoted and you have no comeback other than name calling. My analysis is based on the reality of the text on that website and what it ACTUALLY says, and yours on what you want it to mean. Yet still you can't see why me or the RSPB or anyone else would take a different view to yours. Bizarre.

You need to look back over the thread. I never said they "they say they think" anything. I have already answered why I believe their actions - not their rhetoric which you are so fond of quoting - to imply the above attitude, I'm not doing it a second time.

In reply to Alyson:


I think you've got that almost exactly the wrong way round.


Oh I can see it quite clearly, it's prejudice.


But your previous attempt was feeble and a total misrepresentation. You said: "Jeez, AGAIN! [...] This is what I mean when I say that economic interests are being given priority over other interests. Other interests are not mentioned ...".

Not only have you utterly failed to point out anywhere saying that economic interests take priority over other interests, but your claim that other interests are "not mentioned" is simply flat-out false. As I've said several times, the very paragraph that you quote one *also* mentions: (1) consumers, (2) employees, (3) the environment, (4) a fair society, (5) saving lives, (6) society in general, and (7) volunteering.

But no doubt you'll say that all of those are just irrelevant "rhetoric" and you'll pick out the one phrase in the paragraph, about business and the economy, that you want to claim is the only important one. That's simple prejudice.

In reply to Coel Hellier: Are we back to black being white? You seem to think that you get to choose what 'counts' as rhetoric, as if the term itself has no fixed meaning. I am not offering my opinion about what I think is rhetorical, I am pointing out what actually IS rhetorical, ie which passages sound nice but carry no weight. It is not my fault they carry no weight, it is the fact that they make no statement of actual intent which leads them to carry no weight.

When I say that other interests are not mentioned, I am pointing out that nowhere on the website does it state HOW they will inform this decision. In terms of the process being undertaken, they are given lip service BUT THAT IS ALL. If the environmental impact of changes to this legislation was being accorded high importance, any concerns raised would then be placed back in front of conservationists to see if their aims could be achieved in a different way. But instead, ministers are going to choose what to keep and what to scrap, with a presumption towards scrapping where they have identified a burden of some kind. This is not my opinion, this is what they have stated. The only way to refute this is to change the meaning of the English language but I can see you're already giving that a good go.

Your argument to the contrary so far amounts to this:


Despite the fact that you are basing your stance on a special and new interpretation of words, you think the RSPB is prejudiced because it doesn't see things your way. It may have 'connotations' to you but that is because you choose to see them there, as you are starting from an inherent position of trust in their intentions. That doesn't make you "fair" - what utter nonsense - that makes YOU prejudiced.

Look. You obviously think this is an immensely reasonable and intelligent way to get rid of legislation. I don't, and I don't mind that you disagree with me. But sinking down to the level where you question my intelligence doesn't make you look good. Also, in the context of a discussion where you have boldly declared rhetoric to be fact and words of intent to mean something they don't actually say, I think it's a bit rich.

You dismiss my arguments as feeble without constructing a single decent refutation beyond "I think you're wrong". For example this sentence:

"This site is designed to promote open discussion of ways in which the aims of existing regulation can be fulfilled in the least burdensome way possible."

Are you trying to tell me it's NOT about how the website has been designed? Am I wrong about that too? Because I think the opening 4 words would rather back me up. You think they say something more than that but they actually don't. However you see your own special "connotations" (without in any way, shape or form being prejudiced. Obviously).

In reply to Coel Hellier: sorry to break it to you professor but you've been outclassed. You lost this argument several posts ago, you just haven't realised it yet. No amount of trying to change the meaning of words is gonna alter that!

Interesting discussion though.

In reply to Alyson:


Hmm, pot, kettle, black.


But in order to know which passages are such you need to first know which carry no weight, and one can only do that if one fully knows the intent behind them, and it is exactly that that we are disputing. It seems to me that the passages that you putting most weight on are exactly the ones that are most rhetorical!


Nor does it say that about economic and business interests. But anyhow, the explanation of the process is a simplified AND RHETORICAL account, rather than a full and detailed explanation.


Yes, in the end it does have to ministers who decide on changes to legislation. Are you *really* worried that there will be no consultation or discussion of such changes with relevant bodies? I can see why you and the RSPB are so upset if so, but add a dose of common sense and reality, realise that a website such as this gives a LARGELY RHETORICAL account of process, and (David Cameron voice) calm down dear!


No I don't. What I think is that it is a sensible and laudable *initial consultation of the public* that will be one part of *informing* a much wider process. I think it good that the government consult people, and they should be encouraged to do so, not have people reacting like the RSPB.

In reply to Alyson:

Getting a little bored of us repeating ourselves (and i'm sure others are bored also), I'll phrase it a different way.

You are obviously concerned that, out of 21,000 regulations, a vast proportion, perhaps 12,000, are about to be scrapped on a short-ish timescale with very little further consultation just on ministerial fiat. And if that were about to be the case then hysteria would be understandable.

My "real world" prediction is that, out of those 21,000 regulations a few hundred might be ear-marked for repeal, and that after the subsequent discussions and consultations, that will drop to a couple of dozen fairly inconsequential ones (about 0.1% of the total). And those couple of dozen will then be trumpeted as a success of the policy.

And I'm willing to bet £100 donation to an environmental cause that the actual outcome will be much nearer the latter of those two paragraphs than the former one.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Hmm. Not. Even. Close.


Coel, I honestly don't know how to put this any simpler. You are basically confirming what I've said all along, that you are choosing - for political reasons - to believe an intent behind them. I am not putting weight on anything, I am discussing what the words themselves commit to. This is what spin amounts to... suggesting intent without committing to it. You CHOOSE to believe that intent and you say because I don't, I am lacking in intelligence. Actually, I think you show a lack of intelligence for swallowing it without question but there you go.


And I am telling you that what you think is not backed up by what the government have committed to, although it is a very good account of the impression they are hoping to give. Congratulations.


Please back that up with evidence.

In reply to Coel Hellier: that horse you are flogging died quite some time ago you know

In reply to Coel Hellier:
If, out of 21,000 regulations, only a couple of dozen of fairly inconsequential ones are repealed, I would wonder just how onerous those regulations have been and why there has been so much fuss and bother. It might even sound like a terrific waste of time and money.

In reply to tony:


Or it might just point to the amount of inertia in the system.


I think it'll do some good in helping to alter attitudes of the regulators and the drafters of regulation, but that's a big task and I doubt that this exericse itself will create a sea-change.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


while the likelihood is this will end up closer to the rather damp bonfire of quangos they tried last time round it doesnt mean it shouldnt be treated with caution.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
From the intro to the government website:

There is just a tiny chance that it's the Govt packaging it dishonestly though, isn't there?