Bishop Hill Dixon in the dock?
Sep 17, 2013 Energy: gas The revolving door between the bureaucracy and environmentalists whirrs once again. A week or so ago, I noted the campaign by Friends of the Earth, and in particular their director Richard Dixon, against Dart Energy, a company that is trying to expand its coalbed methane operations in central Scotland. The campaign took a lurch towards the disreputable when Dixon gave his twitter followers to believe that the suspension of the company's shares on the Australian Stock Exchange was caused by financial difficulties rather than - as Dixon surely must have known - it being normal procedure for a company about to undergo a financing round.
The financing has now been successfully completed, underlining the misdirection by Friends of the Earth, but there has been an interesting new twist this week. As well as being the director of Friends of the Earth Scotland, Dixon turns out to be a board member of Sepa - the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency - the regulator to which Dart Energy must apply for its licences and to which it must genuflect every time it wants to do just about anything more dramatic than take a coffee break.
Being confronted by a regulator with senior staff who want to put you out of business and who are putting out a veritable campaign of disinformation against you in the media must be a bit unnerving for company management, so it's perhaps not too surprising that Dart's lawyers wrote to Dixon asking him to desist.
We find it deeply troubling that, as a Board Member of SEPA, you are making these comments on a public forum such as twitter. SEPA is responsible for granting, varying and revoking licences in respect of the coal bed methane production at Airth. Furthermore, they are one of the bodies who will be required to be consulted in respect of Dart Energy's application to the Scottish Government to consider the ongoing planning applications to Falkirk and Stirling Councils.
There is a clear conflict of interest which arises as displayed by your comments on your twitter feed and the fact that as a member of SEPA you may be required to consider future applications by Dart Energy or consult with the Scottish Government in respect of their ongoing application. Please confirm that you will
1) take no involvement with any consultation to do with our client's activities;
2) remove the above noted tweets from your twitter feed; and
3) refrain from posting any further material about our client's activities given the conflict in interest due to your position as a Board Member of SEPA.If you agree to the above terms, and sign the acknowledgment overleaf, we will take no further action. We look forward to your response within 48 hours or we will consider all legal remedies available to our clients.
The reply from Dixon was, perhaps not unexpectedly, that Dart should take a running jump and there has been much huffing and puffing on Twitter about attempts to gag Friends of the Earth. These protestations are somewhat unconvincing, however, because the only place the letter sent by Dart's lawyers mentions FoE is the address. The threat was to Dixon as an individual.
I'm not sure about the letter. The conflict between Dixon's position at SEPA and his role at FoE is clearly real, and disturbing for those of us who worry about good governance. His campaign of disinformation is well documented, and right up there with the worst of his colleagues in the green movement. The entanglement of the two issues makes a suitable response hard to gauge. But legal letters need to make a stand for free speech, otherwise they risk backfiring. This may not matter if Dart really can make a go at getting legal redress - I have no idea how easy it is to get these kinds of charges to stick - but if it proves to be an empty threat then they will lose twice over.
We await developments.
Reader Comments (33)
I wonder what SEPA's rules, if any, are on conflict of interest declaration/non participation.
It sounds like quite a serious allegation from Dart and as such I will not comment further just now and I would urge others to be careful as I would not be surprised if this ends in court.
Why stop at Dixon? The SEPA Board seems to be riddled with green activists, eg Dr Helen Zealley, who is on the Advisory Board of WWF Scotland. The current SEPA Chief Executive James Curran, has a track record of environmental activism having been on the advisory board of WWF, or perhaps FOE, I can't now find the link. It would not surprise me to find several others.
Scottish Government seeks applicants for SEPA Board
2 August 2013
The Scottish Government has today launched a campaign to recruit new members to the Board of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), to take up post in January 2014.
link
However ... no where does it say how to apply.
emckeng,
You are correct, but none of these people made a public announcement (on twitter) which I guess is what Dart's position is all about.
I agree with the Bishop that freedom of speech is an issue, but so is the responsibility that goes with a public position and the potential to manipulate stock prices through disinformation is a serious matter.
Couldn't you have got a "Green" into the post title? :)
Is there a list of green activists in positions of influential power in public bodies?
As well as the examples given above we can think of heads of the Environment Agency and the Met Office.
It would be handy to have a single easy to reference list.
A worthy project Bishop?
tonyb
Is Curran still at SEPA? Either way he is an alarmist fool; e.g. he says our grouse moors will dry out and release extra CO2: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5398956.stm but also says increased rainfall will result in more flooding - http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/video/r/video_tcm4712149.asp
By the way, SEPA have an dubious track record in protecting the environment when it comes to the development of renewables - e.g. they gave approval for the proposed Birks o' Aberfeldy Hydro Electric Scheme, which would have abstracted an average of 50% of the flow away from the waterfalls made famous by Robbie Burns. Thankfully the locals put a stop to the scheme, something which SEPA and also SNH refused to do, despite the gorge being a SSSI.
Heh ...
SEPA are mere dilettantes when it comes to screw-ups and exploiting ecoo-loonery to extend their empire ( although this episode has shades of USA - EPA Al Armendiraz to be sure) The English Environment Agency have yet to properly jump off the fence AIUI for / against coal bed methane / enhanced methane recovery.
If the English EA run true to present form we'll be in the 22nd century with nowt but a few smouldering lumps of dung + damp twigs to keep us warm through the winter. They don't need conflicted ecotards on the board to mess up things.
As far as Dixon is concerned - if any Dart folk read this Conspiracy to Defraud is what you're after - and it will stick - as English EA officials are about to discover.
typo in "..clear connict of interest.."?
Bish, it's pretty simple. If you are a decisionmaker in a public sector role, you do not engage in campaigning for or against the parties involved. However, if you are unable to control yourself to the point where you (inappropriately) enter into partisan politics, you automatically recuse yourself from the decisionmaking process.
It has nothing to do with free speech.
Mind you, if he refused to recuse himself, Dart would be able to challenge any unfavourable decision on the grounds of bias, and would have a strong case. But it means more expense and delay, and you can be sure that taxpayers, not Dixon, would be paying his legal costs. It is just more financial punishment for Dart at public expense.
As for the lies about their stock market trading halt, in Australia you can go to jail for doing that. I don't know what the consequences might be in the UK.
These people's ethics are lower than a snake's belly.
Sepa visited all the local farms last year looking for Cow's defecating in the Burns (small streams), they do not like the Cows doing their business but when one of the farmers offered to stop all access to the Burns by use of fences they objected as the local wildlife would also not have access, he asked if this wildlife was free to poo and yes they were was the answer. So there is good poo and bad poo !!!!
This sounds like a good example of "Doublethink" because the subject of this article appears
not to recognise the undoubted conflict of interests.
Why am I not surprised.
If he knowingly made untrue statements about a listed company, then he may well be guilty of a number of offences.
It wold be interesting perhaps for Dart to have a think about that.
We should go down the new Australian action, defund and close government environmental departments and NGO's like FOE, Greenpeace, WWF all of which get government monies in one way or another and refuse their charity status so they pay some corporation tax.
Would someone define what is meant by environmental protection as in "Scottish Environmental Protection Agency"
From SEPA's Standing Orders for meetings ( http://www.sepa.org.uk/about_us/sepa_board.aspx link to pdf at bottom of the page)
47. The Code of Conduct requires members of boards and committees to declare any interests in
the business of a meeting. Even if there is not a specific agenda item to elicit declarations of
interest, it is the responsibility of each member to ensure that relevant interests are declared. A
member declaring an interest should normally take no part in the proceedings and may be
invited to withdraw from the room by the Chair whilst the area of interest is discussed.
This, I submit, has too wide a leeway and would enable Dixon unacceptable discretion not to declare an interest. Curiously, searching for "Code of Conduct" on the SEPA website come up blank. Maybe there is a case for a FoI request?
PS, apologies for the blue - it came with the copy and paste
Disregard my PS, it's late at night...
In administrative law, an "interest" does not have to be financial. It includes things like friends, relatives or any other consideration which might affect, or be seen to potentially affect, the impartiality of the decisionmaker.
It's a pretty cut and dried case in law, IMO, even if the Code of Conduct is loosely worded. That is, unless Scottish administrative law is significantly different to the English (and English law based) model used in common law jurisdictions internationally.
To be honest if I got a rudish letter from a puffed up lawyer with no power whatsoever I would tell them to go forth and multiply as well, and I would make sure it was outside their deadline too - so fair play to him there.
He does climb down on the main issue though, tucked away in amongst a load of other unrequired outrage :
"in the unlikely event that the SE
PA Board were to have a detailed discussion
of the current proposal from Dart Energy I would declare an interest and not
take part in that discussion"
On the other hand maybe an FoI request by someone with more experience of these things would be useful - to find out just which applications this chap has been involved in. And also to ask why he is on the board and not just an adviser.
PS - the lawyers have bottled it anyway
http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/sites/files/Dart%20response%2016-09-13.pdf
Not at all. It looks like they got exactly the assurance they wanted, and made sure that the rest of the board were aware of Dixon's tweets, which might not have been achieved had they not worded their letter so severely. Dixon's reply is just bluster but there's no point being vindictive. As long as he doesn't interfere in the process, job done.
Evidently the ability to act in an adult manner is not a requirement for Sepa board members.
4:19 PM David Chappell
as far as codes of conduct are concerned - it'll be like the English EA code of conduct - only a "lip service" outline with *absolutely* no teeth whatsoever - no sanctions will be defined for transgression and there is no evidence that I can find of anybody - at all, being hauled up for misbehaviour.
As I have commented previously on this here - these people (SEPA , EA) are acting routinely far beyond both the extant codes of conduct, statutory powers and even the actual criminal laws of the land that if they keep going they'll arrive eventually at Droit de Seigneur ...
As others might know - I have a horse in this race (background, recent misbehaviour) and have spent 4 years looking initially for an equable outcome - but latterly for remedy. It is abundantly clear that these organisations see themselves as above the law in a way that would be familiar to anybody living in the "pre democratic" era. The accountability of DECC , EA, SEPA (and others) has been very deliberately attenuated and in addition the vestigial restraints in place have not in truth been properly tested - there are far too many egregious examples of utterly unacceptable behaviour being perpetrated by individuals (employed as public servants) going unchallenged. It should be noted that the organisations mentioned are not amenable to dialog or "doing the right thing" - it's not in their DNA.
What to do?
First off - Conspiracy to Defraud Lord Dilhorne gave the standard definition wikipedia and the CPS instructions here It's a blunt instrument - but the definition is clear and there's not much doubt the definition of the crime applies.
Next - The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 defines a code of conduct for all UK civil servants - its scope is such that every civil servant is covered and departmental codes of conduct are subsidiary to the central pdf- Civil Servant's Code.
Apologies to anybody who's been subjected to this mini rant before - but sadly, under the present regime we're enduring I believe it bears repeating.
Both the courses of action hinted at above are being followed narrowly in our case - but it's clear that if you check out the legislation / law links - there is wider application.
Out of control and think themselves untouchable ...
"The Scottish Government has today launched a campaign to recruit new members to the Board of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), to take up post in January 2014."
However ... no where does it say how to apply. --MikeHaseler
Obviously, you ask someone who is presently a member the next time you go morris dancing with him.
I'm with johanna: this is nothing to do with free speech.
"PS - the lawyers have bottled it anyway" ... quite the opposite!
He's told the lawyers that this was an official communication from Friends of the Earth. In other words it was not just some loony with a lose tongue but an official pronouncement.
They also know exactly who to put on the documentation and have made it very well worth taking them to court as the organisation has lots of money.
He also had a go at Dart when he was Director of WWF Scotland.
Clearly any application to SEPA is not going to be treated in a fair and proper way whilst it contains board members who pre-judge and who are not prepared to base decisions on facts and evidence. It really goes to show the degree of economic, social and environmental damage that can be done by unelected quangos filled with self serving activists.
@ morph, you quoted Dixon:
""in the unlikely event that the SE
PA Board were to have a detailed discussion
of the current proposal from Dart Energy I would declare an interest and not
take part in that discussion"".
Weasel words by Dixon. If the lawyers want to play hardball, they should now demand that he:
- undertake not to be present during any discussion OR DECISION concerning Dart other than procedural matters;
- undertake not to lobby other members or the public on any matter concerning Dart's applications; and
- importantly, undertake not to vote on any such matter (which he carefully has not done).
In any public sector organisation I have been involved with, an incident like this would have senior management bending over backwards to keep the tainted party a long, long way away from the decision process, not least because they would otherwise be exposing themselves to legal challenges.
Individuals can be vulnerable when this happens, because they often cannot afford legal challenges. But corporations with a lot at stake are a different matter, as pragmatic government officials know.
11:36 PM johanna
"Individuals can be vulnerable when this happens, because they often cannot afford legal challenges. But corporations with a lot at stake are a different matter, as pragmatic government officials know."
More than that - iirc - the English EA codes of conduct are specific in that the precipitation of a legal challenge by officials actions is supposed to trigger a formal internal investigation. That this does not happen is... erm, telling about the internal culture and mindset.
Those "pragmatic government officials" have no problem acting wilfully individually - and with some confidence that they have the state's coffers to dip should they tick somebody off enough that they resort to a legal challenge :-)
[Bish - snip if O/T]
SEPA's Board boasts an impressive cadre of suitably capable appointees. Resplendent within is chairman David Sigsworth, a ned of Flexitricity (amongst others), wherein STOR is the operating cash cow:
"Flexitricity’s smart grid provides Short Term Operating Reserve (STOR) – the most important category of fast-acting generation or demand-reduction capacity – which is held ready for National Grid, to keep the electricity system stable during times of system stress. Flexitricity’s live, operational service is available every day to National Grid."
What a farce.
When I was a journalist my spell checker used to change Richard Dixon to Richard Dioxin, something I took great delight in telling him.
I'm a Dart shareholder and am participating in the current cash raising .
This is a great example of "public servants" completing ignoring policy decided by elected representatives (in Westminster) and attempting to formulate and implement policy themselves .
Cronyism seems to become particularly rife when you have governments in place for three successive terms of office as we had with Nulabor and the Conservatives in the 'Eighties .
Public servants need to be put in the same boat as the rest of us . That means scrapping their pensions schemes and getting them to come up with a scheme which would be open to everyone which they themselves would be enrolled into - the only way of getting good pensions for everyone .
Look at the result of them devising schemes for other people to use which they will never have to use themselves ; NEST .