On 23/02/07, Mack, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Will Chapman directed us to > > > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmenvfru.htm
I've only had a chance to skim this in my lunch hour, but here are some first thoughts: 1) the cuts are not due to EU fines, but a combination of mismanagement by DEFRA civil servants and Treasury intransigence 2) that the mistakes were at official level, rather than ministerial - but ministers didn't seem very good at explaining what was happening. 3) that although BW gets a good showing in the report (and of course will be the sole subjects of a future select committee report), we shouldn't forget there are other (deserving) victims. 4) The commitee is suggesting that BW should have had longer to absorb and plan its cut, rather than opposing it outright (though that may be because of the nature of this particular report - we still have the BW report to come.) 5) DEFRA cock-ups (rather than EU fines) make it harder to argue that the Treasury should draw on the contingency fund. The Treasury has gone into hard cop mode on all spending (with partial exceptions for health, education and security). 6) The RPA is still a black hole, but is not the main cuase of the difficulties. 7) I expect it's hidden somewhere in the report, but I can't get my head round the difference between near-cash and non-cash spending. (I wonder if any pubs take non-cash spending.) 8) All the protests, organised by SOW and others, have clearly made an impact. Well done Will and team. At the strategic level - and this a first 'thinking out loud', not settled conclusions : 1) The report confirms that BW have had a raw deal and that is helpful to the campaign, but: 2) by locating the problem within DEFRA where BW is competing with other agencies, it doesn't help us argue for extra funds from government as a whole. Nigel -- Nigel Stanley
