Quangos tasked with deciding farmers' futures allowing staff to work from other side of the world
They are the bureaucrats charged with protecting Britain's natural environment and those who toil away on it.
Yet while hard-pressed farmers face an uncertain time thanks to Labour's inheritance tax plans, staff at three rural-focused quangos have been logging in to work from the other side of the world.
An investigation by the Daily Mail has discovered taxpayer-funded staff at Natural England, NatureScot and the Rural Payments Agency have worked from Asia, North America and even Australia.
Bosses at the three bodies – which employ about 6,000 staff and receive hundreds of millions of pounds of Government cash a year – have allowed employees to work abroad more than 300 times in the last three years, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
Staff were allowed to spend at least 1,174 days working abroad, although the total figure is expected to be much higher given NatureScot refused to provide the full information.
Natural England, which added £100million to the bill for HS2, building a bat tunnel because the creatures are protected, was involved in 150 approvals, totalling nearly 1,000 days.
This included 20 separate foreign stints each lasting at least ten days – the equivalent to two working weeks – with one staff member logging in for 15 days from Egypt.
One employee at the York-based organisation was allowed to work from Australia for seven days, while Natural England also allowed eight staff to spend at least ten days working from Slovenia.
Another was permitted to spend ten days in France, Belgium and Germany and someone spent nine days in Japan.
The largest period of working away for a member of Natural England staff was a 28-day stint in Ireland.
That was a drop in the ocean compared with the time a member of staff with the Rural Payments Agency, the body repeatedly castigated for the failure to pay farmers the subsidies they were owed on time.
The body has a number of UK regional offices. Its data showed a geospatial services team member, who is listed as a senior executive officer, spent from August 5 last year to January 3 this year in Germany, accounting for 66 working days.
Another spent 14 days in Sweden. NatureScot, based in Inverness, would only reveal there were 137 approvals granted in the last three years.
This included nine trips to the US, two to Canada and India, and a stint in Chile.
Alex Burghart, shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said: 'One wonders how much work will get done on the beach.'
A Tory spokesman said: 'Those making peoples' lives a misery should at least live with the consequences rather than swan off to far-flung corners of the globe.'
A Natural England spokesman said: 'As the Government's adviser on the natural environment, we provide practical advice, grounded in science, on how best to protect and restore our natural world.
'On occasion, staff are required to work abroad for business reasons, including attending international conferences such as COP16.'
An RPA spokesman said: 'Staff are required to travel overseas for official government business – helping the RPA in its role to deliver a range of services to farming and rural businesses.'
This year, the Mail revealed a senior executive at crisis-hit Windsor council was working from Kyrgyzstan.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
13 minutes ago
- Telegraph
There's nothing progressive about a ‘bath tax'
We will be lectured that it is fairer, better for the environment, and, of course, 'more progressive'. Labour ministers are supporting plans by the water industry to extend metered supply. In effect, very soon you could be forced to pay more for the amount of water you use. The trouble is, there is nothing 'progressive' about that. All it will do is create pockets of 'water poverty', reward the water companies for not repairing the pipes, further punish those who choose to have a bigger family, and, like smart meters, introduce an unworkable technology. We should scrap it before it even starts. The days when you could run a bath, run the washing machine, or water the garden, without worrying about how much water you are using could soon be in the past. The more water you use, the higher the tariff you will have to pay. Very soon, we may have smart meters in the corner of the kitchen, as most of us already do for electricity, gently nagging us not to fill the kettle too much, or ticking us off for running the dishwasher before it is completely full. Every litre will be a guilt trip. We will be told that the bath tax is more 'progressive', with those with the 'broadest shoulders', or simply people who like to stay clean, contributing more to the maintenance of the water network. The trouble is, that is ridiculous. There is nothing 'progressive' about charging for water – a utility we ought to have in abundant supply. It won't just target people who have swimming pools or larger families, but those who live in the countryside where gardens are bigger, or grow their own vegetables, or just happen to like long relaxing baths. It is completely random. Complaints about 'water poverty' are inevitable, and demands for a complex system of rebates and benefits to compensate for the charges. The whole system will add yet another layer of complexity to a government system that is already breaking down. Next, it rewards the water companies for failure. One of the major problems with the system is the amount of water that is lost through leaking pipes (up to 50 per cent on some estimates). Why bother repairing the network, and maintaining it properly, when you can simply whack up the charges for using more water, even if much of it has leaked before getting to you? A fixed rate per property rewards the companies for looking after the network. Metered changes risks rewarding them for negligence. Finally, does anyone really believe that the meters will function properly? We already know that the roll-out of 'smart meters' for electricity has been a fiasco, with ruinous bills imposed when these devices go wrong, and then huge fines if you don't pay on time. Water is harder to meter than electricity. It will be even worse. There is no shortage of water in the UK (in case anyone hadn't noticed, it rains quite often). The real problem is we have not built a new reservoir since 1992, while adding millions of people through mass immigration. Yet another tax won't fix that. It will just be one more huge charge that people who are already struggling with the cost of living will have to pay – and they won't even be able to afford a relaxing bath to calm down after opening the bill.
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Stakes are high for US democracy as conservative supreme court hears raft of cases
A year has proved to be a long time on the scales of US justice. Less than 12 months ago, the US supreme court was in serious disrepute among liberals following a series of ethics scandals and a spate of highly contentious, conservative-leaning rulings. It culminated in a ruling last July vastly expanding a president's immunity from prosecution, virtually guaranteeing that Donald Trump would escape criminal censure for the 6 January 2021 insurrection and retaining classified documents. So far had the court's stock with Democrats fallen, that Joe Biden called for radical reforms on how the court was run and a constitutional amendment asserting that no president was above the law or immune for crimes committed in office. Now, with a re-elected and vengeful Trump having run rampant over democratic norms by issuing a fusillade of often illegal and unconstitutional executive orders, the same court – with the same nine justices on the bench – is being cast in the unlikely role of potential saviour of American democracy. Critics who once derided the judicial consequences of the court's six-three conservative majority hope that the justices will show enough fealty to the US constitution to mitigate the effect of Trump's all-out assault on a range of rights, from birthright citizenship to basic due process appeals against deportation, and preserve the constitutional republic's defining contours. 'The court is certainly a very important institution at this moment since Congress is completely pliant and not asserting its own prerogatives and the executive branch doesn't seem to be guided by any internal legal constraint,' said Jamal Greene, a law professor at Columbia University and a former high-ranking justice department official in the Biden administration. The court has already adjudicated in several high-profile cases since Trump's return – notably ruling against the administration in ordering it to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident wrongly deported to El Salvador. But it has ruled in Trump's favour, at least temporarily, in several others. The stakes are about to be raised further still as a spate of cases arising from rulings against the administration by lower judges awaits the supreme court's final say before its current term ends this month. These include: the rights of lower courts to issue injunctions against Trump's efforts to restrict birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed in the constitution; an attempt by Tennessee to ban or limit transgender care for minors; a complaint by parents in Maryland against allowing LGBTQ+ books in elementary schools; the need for insurers to cover preventive healthcare costs under the Affordable Care Act; and attempts to cut off public funding for Planned Parenthood. Added to that daunting schedule, the justices can expect additional unaccustomed summer workload in the shape of seemingly unending emergency cases wrought by Trump's no-holds-barred attempt to transform government. Most experts believe the court will ultimately rule against Trump's attempt to undermine birthright citizenship rights, given that they are so clearly defined in article 14 of the constitution. Yet the devil may be in the detail. Some analysts believe the court has already lent the administration's case unwarranted credibility by agreeing to consider its challenge against lower courts' powers to issue nationwide injunctions on the subject. Perhaps tellingly, the court has not called for a supplemental briefing on whether Trump's 20 January executive order was legal. Hopes that the current court can act as a brake on Trump seem forlorn given its conservative majority and the fact that three of its members – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – were appointed to the bench by Trump himself. In addition, justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito consistently take hardline positions that seem predisposed to favour Trump. Yet speculation that the chief justice, John Roberts, and Coney Barrett have become disenchanted by the brazenness of Trump's actions has fueled optimism. Some believe they could vote with the court's three liberal justices, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – who consistently issue dissenting opinions on rightwing rulings – frequently enough on key occasions to form an effective bulwark. But Leah Litman, a law professor at Michigan University and author of a book on the court entitled Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, is sceptical. A recent ruling upholding the president's firing of the head of the National Labor Relations Board, Gwynne Wilcox, and overturning a 1935 precedent known as Humphrey's Executor – which gave Congress the power to limit a president's ability to remove officials from independent agencies – shows the conservative justice's reverting to type, she said. 'Some people wondered: 'Was the court going to have second thoughts about, for example, their immunity decision giving Donald Trump such leading powers, including powers to act outside of the law and above it?'' Litman argued. 'I think the Wilcox ruling underscored that the answer is definitively no.' Underpinning the conservative justices' approach is the unitary executive theory, which posits that the president has sole authority over government's executive branch, allowing him to fire members of nominally independent agencies without cause. 'They have been pushing this theory for over three decades and now they have a chance to make a pretty muscular version of it the law,' Litman said. 'Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett understand that the court can't let Donald Trump get away with everything, including usurping Congress's power or obviously depriving individuals of due process. But short of that, I don't think they are having any kind of second thoughts about their own views of executive power or about the law more generally.' The few cases of the court standing up to Trump, argues Litman, have been 'overplayed' and pale in importance compared with other rulings that have emboldened the president, including upholding the stripping of temporary protected status from about 300,000 Venezuelans. Greene defined the court's approach as 'formalist' and ill-suited to counter Trump's lawbreaking. He contrasted it with the much bolder ethos under Chief Justice Earl Warren's leadership in the 1950s and 1960s, when the court became renowned for creatively enforcing racial desegregation and civil rights orders in the south. 'Trump's modus operandi is to exploit what he perceives as weaknesses in the system of enforcement and accountability,' Greene said. 'If he thinks that courts are not going to be able to step in, he will try to exploit that as much as he can, unless and until he's stopped by some political actor or an actor with more power. 'The Trump administration is exploiting the formality and the lack of creativity of courts in general, but the supreme court in particular.' The court's writ has already been exposed as limited by Trump's failure to comply with its order to facilitate the return of Ábrego García to the US. According to Greene, the White House's failure to police its own actions to ensure they are in line with the law and the constitution already amounts to a constitutional crisis, because the courts lack the time and resources to counter unbridled violations. That puts added onus on the supreme court to fulfill its role as ultimate arbiter, argues Litman. 'We should continue to demand that they actually do uphold the law,' she said. 'I don't think we should just give up and give in to their inclination to not enforce the law and allow Donald Trump to get away with legal violations. If they don't, force them to expend the capital and pay a price in their public approval rating.'
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Can Nigel Farage really boost Britain's birth rate?
As Sir Keir Starmer continued to drag his feet over one of the most contentious policy issues among Labour MPs and voters, Nigel Farage spotted an opportunity. Proclaiming during a speech last week that Britain had 'lost our sense of focus of just how important family is', the Reform UK leader unveiled plans to lure frustrated Labour voters while also attempting to arrest a decline in the UK's birth rate. Farage pledged that an elected Reform would scrap the two-child benefit cap and introduce a transferable tax allowance for married couples, in a bid to encourage people to have children. 'This is part of a bigger package and policy that we are putting together to try and make the family a more important element in British life,' said Farage. It marks the party's move into pro-natalist policies. Reform's proposed transferable tax allowance for married couples takes inspiration from central Europe. During his time in office Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister, has placed significant focus on the importance of birth rates and traditional families. Earlier this week, Farage said he was 'not moralising' on the significance of marriage and added that having been divorced twice his 'track record was not so good on this'. Reform's policy would exempt one partner in a marriage from paying tax on the first £25,000 of their salary. Ben Ramanauskas, a senior fellow in economics at the Policy Exchange, says the proposal would bring the UK 'into a territory where most European countries are'. He adds: 'They have a much more generous system when it comes to taxing households and families.' However, Ramanauskas cast doubt on the idea that the measure could encourage couples to have children: 'The proposal itself won't have much of an impact on what Farage is aiming for in terms of hoping to increase the birth rate.' Reform's plans also miss out a key group of would-be parents. More than half of children in the UK are born to couples out of wedlock. So with the transferable tax allowance only reserved for married couples, the baby boosting effect of the policy is unclear. The party has also said it would scrap the two child benefit cap, a pledge which is estimated to cost £3.4bn, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Tomáš Sobotka, deputy director at the Vienna Institute of Demography, says abolishing the cap would help to lift children out of poverty but its impact on Britain's birth rate is likely to be 'marginal'. 'Most parents today don't desire more than two kids so it's a select group of women and families who are having a third or a fourth child,' he says. 'Providing a bit more in services … will not change fertility planning among many couples.' In Hungary, Orbán's attempts to fix the country's birth crisis mean it spends around 5pc of its GDP on measures aimed at encouraging couples to have children. The most significant of these measures is the country's large tax breaks. Currently mothers under 30 pay no income tax and mothers with three or more children are exempt from paying income tax for life. Orbán has also pledged to extend the measure to mothers of two children by January 2026. The government also offers loans to newly-weds that can be partially or fully written off if the couple has two or three children – as well as subsidies for family car purchases and housing. Despite Orbán's significant spending and hopes of a baby boom, Hungary's birth rate stood at 1.52 children per woman in 2022, in the UK it was 1.53 children per woman in 2021. For context, a country needs a fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman to ensure it has a stable population, without immigration. 'In the last few years Hungary has experienced fertility declines to the same extent as other countries and it now has exactly the same fertility rate as the European average ... from that perspective Hungarian policies are not bringing in tremendous success,' says Sobotka. But Orbán's focus on large families is helping to deliver an uptick in the number of households with three or more children, Sobotka adds. In the Nordics, the picture isn't any clearer. Finland pioneered the introduction of family friendly policies including parental leave and childcare from the 1980s onwards. The country reported a rise in its birth rates in the 1990s despite going through a financial crisis. 'Introducing these kinds of policies if they are long term … longer parental leave and especially affordable childcare have been shown in a wealth of studies both in the Nordic countries and from other countries to be associated with somewhat higher fertility,' says Anna Rotkirch, of the Family Federation of Finland's Population Research Institute. 'No silver bullet policy' However, she warns these measures 'are not enough for today's situation,' and that 'there's no silver bullet policy.' Indeed, the initial boost to Finland's birth rate in the late 20th century has waned and since 2010 the country has seen its birth rate decline by a third. Yet, Rotkirch says that while government spending and Reform's proposed policies might not have much of a demographic impact they were an important element in reducing child poverty. 'The cost of parenting is real and it is also economic,' she adds. 'Why do we have a society where you get poorer if you have a child?' Over in South Korea the picture is even more challenging. In May 2024, the then-president Yoon Suk Yeol asked for the parliament's cooperation to establish the Ministry of Low Birth Rate Counter-planning. 'We will mobilise all of the nation's capabilities to overcome the low birth rate, which can be considered a national emergency,' he said. The country has gone through a raft of measures including baby bonuses, subsidised fertility treatments and housing assistance but the country's fertility rate stood at 0.78 children per woman in 2024. Melinda Mills, a professor of demography at Oxford University say: 'They've also shown that throwing a lot of money at it doesn't work so you have to get to the root of people's lives. What are their work hours? Where do they live and work? Where's childcare?' One nation that has a slight edge in the birth rate compared to its European neighbours is France. Mills added that France's more comprehensive package of subsidised childcare, parental leave and school support goes some way in encouraging couples to have children. Indeed the measures seem to be having a small effect on the country's fertility rate, which was 1.8 children per woman in 2021 compared to the EU average of 1.53 during the same year. 'It's harder work than throwing a baby bonus and trying to think you could do a silver bullet but actually creating an ecosystem that has childcare, that has good maternity and paternity leave, has a good work-life balance – that's where France has done very well,' says Mills. However, it's clear that there is no one pro-natalist policy which will act as a catalyst to boost birth rates. While Farage's proposed Hungarian-style tax breaks look unlikely to persuade couples to have children, Mills explained that measures which addressed quality of life were likely to be more impactful. 'People need a good life, they need good jobs, be able to get a house, childcare,' says Mills. 'It's about wellbeing, it's about work-life balance. That's not as sexy … but these are the things that have been shown to be more effective.'
