Red tape makes politicians go ape......
And quite a lot of other people too! Its a pretty regular occurrence to hear business leaders, farmers, politicians, doctors, teachers and many more professions bemoaning the stultifying effect of red tape, ‘jobs worths’ and the gold plating of EU rules that we in Britain apparently have to put up with. But the evidence to support this charge is less compelling as the ‘Davidson’ review demonstrated.
Sometimes I have been known to express my frustration with regulation! You can imagine the scene. RSPB Scotland is preparing to restore an area of habitat to its former glory – so it supports more scarce and declining species. Species which have been listed by the UK Government, and the Scottish Government as priorities for conservation action. The habitat was afforested by non-native conifers some 25 years ago (with no environmental considerations) by the previous owner who received a large slab of taxpayers money for his pains. Our proposals to restore the area are held up by 18 months so that an Environmental Assessment can be carried out and interested parties consulted. Were they consulted when the damage was done? Was an environmental assessment required? You can guess the answer!
So I do understand the frustration people can have with ‘mindless’ bureaucracy, which does not appear to be joined up or ‘sensible’, but imagine the scene for a moment if industry, developers,farmers or the forestry industry were allowed a free for all. Factories could discharge pollution into our rivers and seas. Smokestacks would belch toxic fumes into the air impacting our health and wellbeing. Your neighbour could extend his house blocking your amenities, farmers could drain wetlands, plough up moorlands, even kill protected species they viewed as pests, and spray pesticides willy nilly. Ancient woodlands could be felled without any sanction. Developers and Local authorities would construct new roads, housing and factories, often in inappropriate places of high landscape or conservation value. Or they would build in floodplains where storm events would flood out the new homeowners.
The fact is regulation is necessary to curb individual behaviour for the common good. To stand up for the wider public interest against short term gains. That way we can protect what is precious, and ensure our health and the environment is cared for-for the benefit of all,including those generations yet to come. But still the pressure to look for a light touch approach seems relentless as is the pressure on the regulators themselves, such as SEPA, or Planning authorities.
The latest red tape review affecting rural areas has recently been announced by the Scottish Government. My old friend Brian Pack has been pressed into service again. He has a wise head on his shoulders. I am confident the team chosen to do this task will approach their work thoughtfully under his lead. They should look at reviews which struggled to find gold plating of EU Environmental requirements. The review should be evidence led, and not be swayed by loud voices with vested interests. Certainly improvements can always be made and any unnecessary duplication should be challenged. But industries which rely on large sums of public money should not begrudge the public in having a say on how those businesses are conducted. That is why farmers who receive payments from the CAP are subject to ‘Cross Compliance’ or GAEC. This requires them to follow rules to maintain the land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition. In my view much energy is given over to the agricultural- from tagging sheep, measuring the exact boundaries of fields, deciding if land is rough grazing or not for example, and nowhere near enough on the Environmental. Including protecting watercourses and wetlands, keeping the scrub and hedges of value to wildlife, looking after protected areas and obeying laws not to poison protected birds and the like.
But as in all things the health of our people, the look of our countryside and the wildlife it supports depends on a balance of regulation which is open and fairly applied, and incentives which invest in those qualities that make our countryside (& towns and cities) something to be proud of. I certainly support the view that taxpayers should pay farmers and others for going the extra mile and changing their practises to benefit conservation-but all farmers, especially if they take the subsidy should deliver the basic requirements to protect soils, water and wildlife. If Brian Pack and his team can focus down on what really matters, and make regulation efficient and proportionate-in a way which helps improve our farmed Environment and the wildlife it supports, he will have done all society a big favour-not least the farming community.