Dear Minister
Welcome to your new role in Defra following in the rather small footsteps of Rory Stewart. It is to be hoped that you will be able to do more good for wildlife and the environment than your predecessor.
You have a wide range of jobs to do but may I point you in the direction of a couple of them please?
As the implications and detail of the Brexit vote become clearer over time, you may think, or possibly be told by your colleagues or by civil servants, to leave agriculture policy to them. You must not! The future agriculture policy of England will have as major an impact on our threatened wildlife as any other area in your brief. You, as biodiversity minister, must ensure that the needs of wildlife are taken into account as well as the needs of farmers and taxpayers. And you should realise that the only place you can get decent advice on these aspects is from the wildlife NGOs and occasionally from Natural England. What is decided over the next few months will determine the amount of bird song, the number of wild flowers and the intensity of the hum of insects in the countryside to which all our taxes make such a huge contribution.
Second, an issue of lesser, but still great, importance and one that will certainly come across your desk, is that of the management of the uplands for intensive grouse shooting. Driven grouse shooting needs unnaturally high densities of grouse to pay its way and is underpinned by wildlife crime (the killing of birds of prey which eat grouse) and unsustainable land management that increases flood risk, water treatment costs, greenhouse gas emissions etc etc. It’s a long, but fascinating story, and I have sent you a copy of my book on the subject (Mr Stewart asked to see it too). You will find grouse moor management cropping up in your discussions over flooding, National Parks, agri-environment funding, wildlife crime and water quality. You’ll be surprised.
You would be very welcome to attend the Hen Harrier Day rally at the RSPB Rainham Marshes nature reserve on Saturday 6 August – and I’m sure we could find you a space to speak at the event. There should be over 300 pairs of Hen Harrier nesting in England and this year there are just three pairs – because of the levels of criminal activity by those involved in the grouse moor industry. Your predecessor published a completely useless Hen Harrier plan that is widely derided across the conservation and birding world. You may also have to speak on this subject in a Westminster Hall debate if my e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting reaches 100,000 signatures by 20 September – it is currently on 62,232 so it is a quite close call whether we will reach 100,000 or not. Your predecessor signed off an inaccurate and inept government response to this petition with whose consequences you will also have to live.
Yours sincerely
PS It would be nice of you to acknowledge receipt of your free book – Mr Stewart failed to do even that, despite asking to be sent a copy.
PPS I have also sent a copy of my book to the Secretary of State but I’d be very surprised if she reads it.
She’s an Oxford graduate and has a UCL PhD in Chemistry.
A good start.
Quite, so neonics – no problem, did a chemistry degree (was it industry sponsored) all sorted guv ….
Wow ! Oxford ? Really ?
I hope she declares her free book… just sayin’…
Good luck with that. Therese Coffey is my MP, and I wrote to her in 2014 suggesting that she might like to attend RSPB’s ‘Rally for Nature’. She replied: “Thank you for contacting me about the Rally for Nature but I will not be attending as I know that the Conservative Party is already committed to protecting our natural environment.” I remain unconvinced. I have written to her many times regarding the badger cull and the consensus of scientific opinion which suggests that the only way to control bTB in cattle is through better testing and strict movement control. Her letters are always standard replies following the party line, except for the last one which was a one-liner stating ‘I have not changed my view’. And of course she supports repeal of the hunting act.
Oh dear.
Sounds like another MP out of kilter with their electorate?
Sadly very few politicians seem interested in a healthy natural environment and think that safeguarding it is SEP?
Truss’s ghost writer used diversionary tactics, as did Cameron’s recently regarding dis-Honorable comments made by one of his MPs, not accountable and will things change in the near future ….
Not such a good start then.
I have had almost exactly the same experience unfortunately. Career politician with the interests of business and money at heart. Dim view of the RSPB. Always, always follows the party line. I am afraid it certainly does not bode well for nature, but unless she can surprise, gratify and delight all her constituents the coffers of Coffey will be very full for farmers.
So her wish list includes repeal of the hunting act and flogging off the public forest estate. To say I’m pessimistic would be a significant understatement. (Though she is a CAMRA member)….
Eats toxic grouse per chance?
Wonder if parliamentary kitchens have ever hosted a tasting session ….
Must apologise for recent comments, they’re not much better than those made by politicians as they partake in westminster punch and judy show?
Can’t be all bad then John! Perhaps Mark can take her for a beer and enlighten her about a few issues; I’ve heard he enjoys the odd half pint.
Why should taxpayers contribute approx £208/ha to farm incomes post Brexit when “every time one buys the lie of cheap food a flower or a bird [or a fish] dies” (to quote John Lewis-Stempel in ‘The Running Hare’, Transworld Publishers, 2016).
We have an obesity crisis, a diabetes crisis, a farmland biodiversity crisis, water quality, soil erosion and increased flood risk management costs (some of many external costs of current farming/land management practices and ‘cheap’ food policy). So when ‘taking back control’ it’s surely time for our new Minister(s) to consider policy coherence and integration to deliver public benefits for all, not few, to capture full external costs in reduced subsidy and regulation, and let the market determine the real costs of our food?
I’ve had significant dealings with Dr Coffey too. Concern for the environment is not her instinctive position – her instinct is to assume that Good for Environment must = Bad for Economy (as did the late George O et al) , and of course the economy comes first.
That said, she can be (has been) won round on specifics, but framing the argument in economic or community terms is much more likely to be persuasive than direct concerns about environmental impacts.
I’ve not seen much evidence of original thinking – party loyalty, saying what she thinks people want to hear, and a natural unwillingness to rock any boats seem to be her main political assets. I think she’ll probably be competent at doing nothing (Truss wasn’t even competent at that – I fear for Justice in this country now) but I don’t have high hopes beyond that.
Her instructions will be the same as Rory’s – do nothing, say nothing and you’ll get a better job next time – as have Rory and Liz.
Post Brexit agriculture policy is seriously scary – no one in work today has ever made fundamental agriculture policy – effectively we are running with the 1947 deal.
Radically, and logically, this is the time when farming and conser
Vation really need to start working together before they both lose out to an ignorant urban dOminated political establishment.
“before”
Too late. Eisenhower had it nailed by 1956. Substitute “touch-screen” for “pencil” and it’s up to date
So are we confident that the usual suspects are in there advocating and lobbying? Business for sure who probably didn’t really need to because their pals like them already because they can donate to party coffers thus easing commercial interest? But wee timorous beasties fearing repercussions against charities who might be seen to be campaigning will be challenged in more ways than one?
Mark (et alia)
Ministers come and go, viz-a-viz Rory Stewart, But the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) does not (yet!).
They have just announced on their website ( http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/future-of-the-natural-environment-after-the-eu-referendum-16-17/ ) that they are holding an inquiry (note deadline of the 9th September, nicely timed to coincide with school summer holidays) to engage with interested stakeholders to develop environmental policy going forward from Brexit.
I am hopeful that my professional body, the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management ( http://www.cieem.net ) will respond; and will try and find the time to correspond myself (but am extremely busy doing the ecology at this time of year). I would also be hopeful that the Wildlife Trusts and RSPB respond too.
But I think that it is equally important for the layperson and the amateur naturalist, the bedrock of UK biodiversity protection, through our longstanding commitment to at the very least record our wildlife to respond.
Ministers may pay scant attention to environmental commentators (or seemingly so) but a plethora of commentary will likely awaken their interest and more so than any petition I care to mention (though 66K + signatures and rising also communicates a message too). It is easier for an MP to ‘tow the party line’ if Mrs Smith from Eccles writes in; far harder if they start to receive a number of letters on the same subject. I read, a long time ago, that MPs work (back then, and before e-mail and social media) on a ratio of 1:8. In other words, for every letter on a subject they receive, there could well be eight other constituents who share the same view but just haven’t bothered to convey their feelings. I suspect that this ratio is reduced owing to the ease of social and electronic media but I think the point remains valid.
This inquiry, will in my view, potentially represent the most serious study on the UK’s environmental policy going forward. Its outcome may well dictate how the UK’s nature conservation protections move forward for a generation.
I suspect that agriculture will be given the greatest priority; the 31 species of spider on the UK’s list of Species of Principle Importance (= UK BAP Species in old parlance) less so. So this is a fundamental opportunity to ensure that Semljicola caliginosus gets its voice heard and recognised in the same study as the important agricultural industry.
So back to the Minister. Yes, she may have played the party line till now; as has her boss. But we are in different times; and different times demand different approaches. There is much to play for and we should all do our part – sure communicate on this blog; but spend an equal amount of time conveying similar sentiments to our MPs, and Ministers (and Councillors too).
Am off to write mine.
Richard
Richard – thank you.
I tried writing to Coffey too but was told by her secretary Alex Bright that he wasn’t going to forward my email on to her. I wonder if was because I spoke about the risk of Brexit to the environment and he campaigned to Leave.
Owen – if you are a constituent then Mr Bright has no business intercepting and blocking your communications with your MP. If not a constituent then it5’s still a bit off.
I would add that now Therese is a Minister, whether or not Owen is a constituent, providing I suppose the communication is relevant to her Brief, then it should not and must not be intercepted. I would expect this to be contrary to Parliamentary procedure.
R.