It has executive powers and will run the Rugby Football Union without constantly having to refer to the "57". I can only assume the programme was made some time ago as it certainly does not reflect the current situation, but that does not excuse collective abuse if reports are correct. At a meeting last Friday, the new executive, recommended by the Bishop Commission, was elected This has nearer 15 members than 57. At the time of writing I have not seen the programme Fair Game, which was shown on Channel 4 last night. I understand that in it Will Carling, the England captain, calls for an end to amateurism in rugby union and says: "If the game is run properly as a professional game, you don't need 57 old farts running rugby." My reaction to this, if correct,is disbelief and disappointment. Maybe the Government prefers making single high-profile tax cuts - for example, in income tax rates - to more effective ones that make for smaller headlines.So, until the Government takes the problem seriously, remember to use your car responsibly, in terror that someone with a clipboard in your local Air Quality Management Area may be taking notes on you.. The paper didn't give individuals the right to bring court cases against the owners of heavily polluting vehicles. Somehow road pricing - which has had more trailers than a Disney video - and tradeable pollution rights for factories didn't get into a major policy paper from a government that supposedly looks for market solutions.Why were these policies so conspicuously absent? After all, many involve tax cuts, which the Government says it wants.

Nor did they offer cash to fund a national programme for new cycle-ways in every city, although these are proven successes in many European cities. Road tax cuts for electric cars didn't make it into the paper, although even Tory Westminster council has experimented with free parking for them. Yet when the air in London or Birmingham reaches high-octane standard, the only penalty the Government imposes is to issue a press release, as it did this week, advising motorists to "use cars responsibly".Here's what the two ministers did not announce: taxing diesel-engined cars and buses more heavily and cutting taxes on newer, cleaner engines. However, this only works if we know who is responsible, and if someone waves sticks at them when they fail.

But the paper was strangely coy about what that action would be.There's nothing wrong with setting targets and leaving it to people to work out how to meet them. There will be "base" standards, or general goals we ought to aim for, and "alert thresholds", which will trigger "remedial action". Are you breathing more easily already?The Government will "settle standards" for various nasty chemicals in the air. You know the kind of thing: Air Quality Management Areas, air quality assessments, local plans, consultation, databases, policy reviews, encouraging private and voluntary effort.

The Government won't admit it, but there may well turn out to be a link between traffic fumes and the numbers of asthma sufferers. In January, Messrs Mawhinney and Gummer produced a document promising action to "transform the prospects of getting rid of the discomfort vehicle pollution can cause". Showing all the quick-fire reactions of a sloth, the Government is beginning to realise that a lot of air pollution is due to rising numbers of cars. Following yesterday's Tory losses in the local elections, this might look like a double whammy. But the politics of winning the next general election mean that the Chancellor's political interests now fit neatly with the Governor's economic motivation in keeping monetary policy tight.The key to his thinking lies in income tax cuts. Mr Clarke is having trouble identifying the cash and the case for the substantial reductions in taxes that his party is banking on. So gathering the funds might require more public borrowing than is strictly prudent and a laxer fiscal policy than the already warm temperature of the economy warrants. Such a slackening in fiscal policy would require substantially higher interest rates than would otherwise be needed.In short, the Governor and the Chancellor should find it easy to agree on a rate rise, albeit for different reasons That's fine for now, because an increase is warranted.