The problem with government conducting its own regulation…
David Gordon has some interesting addendum notes for Arlene Fosters’s decision to re-badge what some regard as the toothless tiger formerly known as the Environment and Heritage Service. Most of his remarks simply echo those of his colleague Sharon Turner yesterday. It may be no surprise that Foster effectively decided on no action until her party has a chance to get to the next election (2011) and shuffle itself out of this particular hotseat. Not only is her Special Advisor a former staffer at the UFU (not great practice bringing lobbyists so far into the centre of government), but her own Westminster ambitions hinge on winning a tough fight in rural Fermanagh South Tyrone. What’s more surprising (though perhaps not when you consider their own rural base) is that Sinn Fein declined to make submissions to the independent panel which recommended its setting up:
Mr Burke also recalled that both the DUP and Sinn Fein had not taken up opportunities to make submissions to the review panel. “The first time I met someone from the DUP was when we went to brief the Minister on our findings,” he said.
Yet the deputy chair of the Environment committee Cathal Boylan yesterday was “disappointed because she [the Minister] has missed a good opportunity to introduce an independent environmental protection agency (EPA). The Minister mentioned some positive aspects about EHS; however, it has a bad record when it comes to planning and illegal dumping, particularly in border areas.” He makes an important point: internal deals between Ministers have a nasty way of being compromised by events. But why then were there no recommendations to Tom Burke’s panel from his own party, Sinn Fein?
There is some sympathy due to the Minister’s view that “the setting up of yet another quango in which unelected people will take decisions on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. I am Minister of the Environment, and it is I, along with my Executive colleagues, who will take the decisions that will be scrutinised by the House and by the Committee for the Environment.” That, after all, is why we elect them.
Devolution has brought long wished for decision-making powers back to the locality. No minister wants to give that away lightly. Yet, the truth is that this kind of environmental protection agency may eventually have to be brought in because of the pressure on government to steer a consistent course along lines set by EU Directives.
The minister also alludes to set up costs of £2.5 million and running costs per annum of £600,000. It’s not clear where these additional costs would come from since (unlike the welter of Commissions many of which have little power other than to act as a clearing house for lobbyists) the primary functions already exist within the EHS.
It should be said that f Northern Ireland is blessed with the kind of economic growth the Republic has seen in the last ten to fifteen years, robust regulation needs to be embedded sooner rather than latter. It’s not simply a case of bungalow blight, the locals complain of, but insufficient services for expanded local communities and poor planning decisions made that have lasting (almost indelible) effects on transport and other wider forms of infrastructure.
The impression given here is that since, as one nationalist politician was heard to say a few years back, ‘there are no votes in the Environment’, another tough decision has been put on the long finger.
It would useful though to hear how the minister intends to keep clear blue water between the new EHS and the policy making function of her department. The board arrangement she mentioned yesterday sounds something like the way the Water Council has operated. And yet they have had enormous difficulty in the past, for instance, in getting access to legal advice given to direct rule minister viz a viz the Urban Waste Water Directive. Burke’s report notes three problems facing any body internal to central government have emerged from experience in Britain and elsewhere.
First, the necessary confidentiality of departmental policy making processes and inter-departmental debate creates a serious lack of transparency around the making of regulatory decisions. Without transparency regulatory decisions command neither the confi dence of the public nor that of the regulated.
Second, the officials administering the regulations are exposed to both a real and perceived risk of conflict of interest. This places the officials themselves in an unfair position in relation to the discharge of their statutory duties and further undermines the confidence of the public and that of the regulated in regulatory decisions. As departmental civil servants, the officials in charge of regulation are accountable, through the Department’s Permanent Secretary, to Ministers. Their first priority is to serve the Minister. Regulatory decisions are predominantly matters of judgement and can frequently result in decisions that are unpopular in some, and occasionally many, quarters. Inevitably, there is suspicion, indeed some risk, that judgements might be tailored to suit immediate
political circumstances.Third, the effectiveness of the proposed agency as a promoter of fair and effective regulation and as an advocate for high environmental standards is inhibited. Modern environmental governance requires a strong and focused regulator able to adopt modern risk-based regulatory practices without a loss of public confidence. The proposed Agency therefore needs to be able to position itself in the public mind as a forceful advocate for the environment. To do so it needs to be able to carry out successful outreach activities whilst avoiding the risk of being seen to be at odds with the Government.
So openness is not necessarily, as the Minister appears to suggest, the most critical question here. Rather it is the lack of what John Kay calls ‘disciplined pluralism’. That ultimately should be about bring greater discipline to the business of government, and making sure that there is little scope for the convenient shifting of goalposts.
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7423699.stm>
can’t get the hyperlink but heres one for Arlene since she wants to take responsibility
From what I took of Arlene’s media moment on the BBC the independent agency is something best not brought into play yet due to the need to be more educational by making improvements in working practices. However, that could also be construed as that of local businesses being a bit thick and needing taught in how to operate in a responsible way towards the environment to reduce pollution et al.
So yes farmers are a key lobby group but I can’t help but think this is definitely a continuation of the DUP’s pro-business stance where they don’t want to be seen to bring into effect any mechanism that could punish SME, farmers etc as they are facing a backs-to-the-wall economic environment.
Whether that is right is another thing but once again I am left struck with all this tinkering about now, where were these smart and business-like DUPers back 10 years ago. On the sidelines, as by-standers through a disastrous political strategy for Northern Ireland. 10 years too late as always with Unionism, not content with pandering to the sectarian elements, now the DUP is clearly pandering to businesses, farmers etc over that of responsible governance.
The DUP is having to chase its tail, perhaps instead if the DUP weren’t so immature over the last 30 years and grew up at the right time, certainly post-98 would have been helpful then NI may well have been in a better condition to fight off economic woes, with a streamlined Stormont in terms of MLAs and departments too. Leaner, meaner and greener.
Steve, may I add the following….?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/heritage/northern_ireland/delisting/article_2.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7388375.stm £6,000, you say??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7319891.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7340227.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7286941.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7106380.stm
Oh the hits just keep on comin’ in this part of the world. Truly until the EU gets medieval on us, we just won’t learn. As I mentioned elsewhere:
It’s another half-hearted attempt at environmental policy in this region, while keeping it all nicely in-house, and away from the potential of an Environmental Czar, who may have the knowledge and clout to embarrass Queen Arlene and the Party Machine.
The current administration wouldn’t know environmental policy if it came up and bit them.
I think you will find farmers have no particular love for the EHS either. Therefore I feel the significance this decision will have on Arlenes chances in FST is being overrated…
Demographics in FST really against her anyway. Can’t see a Unionist winning there to be honest.
Any moderators about? Child on Board thread needs a lot of tidy up at the end. Porn sites etc.
Interesting to see government in Ireland reverting to autonomous petty fiefdoms supported by agriculture. The Union is clearly over, roll on the republic.
Not surprising really,given her party colleagues ability to bully the EHS,the problem is that she is supposed to be a minister for all ,and not just a minister for the DUP and its friends in the property development world.
Frankly if Tom Burke’s (Labour crony/appointee) analysis is so shallow then it does beg the question as to how he was appointed in the first place.
Its nice that he claims the UFU are the only group in favour of the current decision, leaving out people like the CBI, QPA and frankly everyone who doesnt want yet another quango set up. Perhaps Mr Burke fancied Chairing the Quango as well as the review….
Interested, I googled with ‘nuclear sceptics‘ Burke and Hain and came up with these:
The Geopolitics of Climate Change – Tom Burke and John Ashton [pdf file]
Burke and Hain in Green Alliance [pdf file]
Hain, an internationalist not a nationalist: “We prize these things – cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner beaches – but we cannot have them by turning our backs on Europe. It would be no good our coastal resorts investing in sewage
treatment if pollutants were being pumped into the sea by neighbouring countries. And acid rain doesn’t stop at Calais.
“So, I believe that the environment is at the heart of Europe – and so it should be. And I also want the green movement to be at the heart of Europe, shaping it; not isolated on the fringe.”
Perhaps Mr Burke fancied Chairing the Quango as well as the review…. -
I was wondering how many of those who are complaining over this would have been in line for a cushy number of the quango?
Nevin/Observer,
You do have to wonder what motivates many of the Green NGO lobby. Yes they’re keen on environmental protection, no-one would argue against that. However, surely it stands to reason that they’d want an independent EPA which would have a large panel of members/quango kings/queens – and where would the most ‘natural’ pool be to pick this ‘talent’ – well it would be the Green NGO’s of course.
If there was the prospect of a quango being set up with my name written on it then of course I’d be mightily pissed off if it was taken from under my nose! It would no doubt pay better than professional sandal wearing for an NGO.
Interested, I prefer the firm support of boots to the less substantial sandals when I travel over rough terrain. Some lobbyists will be sincere; some will like to have ‘I saved the environment’ on their CV.
PS Hain, the Foreign Office and Conservation integrator, looks more Orange than Green
Dont we employ the Government to make decisions? So why do we need another quango? We have the ultimate regulator in that every so often we can vote ‘em out if we dont like what they have done. It’s called accountability
Cynic
And yet, the constant loser time after time remains the environment.
Those votes, though often cast in earnest, have yielded nothing for the long term good of the environment.