There was anger at the former Environment Secretary during the floods earlier this year. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Badgers may cheer at Owen Paterson's exit, but we shouldn't disregard his achievements

The outgoing Environment Secretary may be an environmentalist's nightmare, but he wasn't all bad.

A white, middle-aged, country man who nevertheless forgot to take his wellies to a flood zone a stone’s throw from one of his infamous badger cull areas, now finds himself culled. Is this how we should remember the Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP, Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, September 2012 - July 2014?

Paterson’s appointment to Defra was popular with farmers and landowners because he was seen as one of their own: MP for that most rural of constituencies North Shropshire, and a leading figure in the European tannery trade. Defra was badly in need of a safe pair of hands after Caroline Spelman’s disastrous attempt to privatise the Forestry Commission. Moving across from the Northern Ireland brief, Paterson was to prove an able choice in this regard.

That is not to say the Defra tractor ploughed a steady course during his tenure. As well as leaving his boots behind for his slow-off-the mark visit to the flooded Somerset Levels, Paterson persevered to push through two hotly contested badger cull trials. This will perhaps be remembered as his most controversial act – but Paterson should also be remembered as the opposition spokesman who tabled more than 600 questions to Defra on badger control in a quest to understand the issue properly. On this issue Paterson clearly believed that he had the best interests of the dairy farming industry at heart.

He was also a passionate advocate of GM crops and technology, highlighting the problems of potato blight in his speech to the NFU in 2013 – preferring the prospects of GM spuds to repeated applications of pesticide. Paterson also espoused a strong interest in new farming technology, although major funding in this area come from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills rather than Defra. The horsemeat scandal rattled confidence in the meat supply chain but Paterson could claim that the UK was one of the first EU members to raise concerns, and one legacy of this has been an increased interest in the provenance of meat.

It was also Paterson who commissioned David Fursden, former president of the Country Land and Business Association, to lead the Future of Farming Review, with a view to easing the way for new entrants into an industry characterised by an ageing workforce.

So very much an industry man? The environmental lobby seems to be sighing with relief at the departure of the climate change sceptic, who was rumoured to forbid departmental officials from using the phrase “ecosystem services” in his presence. But this is perhaps the greatest lost opportunity of Paterson’s short tenure.

Here was an environment secretary who was credible with farmers and industry, and his reluctance to square up to the implications of climate change for farming and the rural economy represents a failure of leadership of environmental and farming interests. He is not without environmental credentials – witness his work with the sea fishing industry on conservation of stocks and the impact of the European fisheries policy – and serious engagement with the long-term implications of climate change would have been a compelling legacy.

Defra is without doubt a complex brief and Paterson was in the post for less than two years. Nowhere is this complexity more challenging than Common Agricultural Policy reform, and Patterson’s incumbency coincided with a particularly demanding period of CAP reform. An important legacy will be the CAP modulation rate for England he announced last December: modulation is Euro-speak for the proportion of CAP money which is channelled away from direct payments to farmers and into environmental schemes. Farmers had begged for 9% on the grounds that a rate any higher would ruin them, while environmental advocates such as the RSPB pressed for 15% as better use of public money in the countryside. The Paterson answer was a straight-down-the-middle 12%, with a promise to review it (upwards) in a year or two.

That task will now fall to his successor Elizabeth Truss, MP for South West Norfolk, freshly arrived at Defra from the Department for Education. Considering the importance of irrigation to her farming constituents in East Anglia (Britain’s driest region), Truss should also be well equipped to pick up the remaining work on Defra’s groundwater abstraction consultation.

Let us hope that Truss is given a reasonable few years to make a go of her new brief at Defra before she too, in the words of her famous namesake, “eats shoots and leaves”.

The Conversation

Charles Cowap is a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, and non-executive Director of Management Development Services Ltd. He works as a rural specialist and land consultant for various companies and on various projects developing ecosystem service approaches, and providing training.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

YouTube screengrab
Show Hide image

Interview: Momentum’s vice chair Jackie Walker on unity, antisemitism, and discipline in Labour

The leading pro-Corbyn campaigner sets out her plan for the party.

As Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters celebrate after his second win, Jackie Walker – vice chair of the pro-Corbyn campaign organisation Momentum, a Labour member and an activist – talks about the result and the next steps for Labour’s membership.

Walker is a controversial figure in the party. Her history as a black anti-racism activist and advocate for Palestine, and her Jewish background on both sides of her family, did not keep her from being accused of antisemitism for a February Facebook post about the African slave trade. In May, she was suspended from the Labour party for her comments, only to be reinstated a few weeks later after a meeting of Labour’s National Executive Committee.

Anger was reignited at an event hosted by Momentum that she spoke at during Labour party conference, on whether Labour has an antisemitism problem. Walker said the problem was “exaggerated” by Corbyn’s critics, and used as a “weapon of political mass destruction” by the media. (We spoke to Walker before this debate took place).

After a summer plagued by suspensions of Labour members, accusations of hateful speech on both sides, and calls for civility, Walker discusses what steps need to be taken forward to help bring the party together.

Jeremy Corbyn spoke in his acceptance speech about wiping the slate clean and the need to unite the party. What steps can members from all sides take to unite the party?

I think people have got to stop using antagonistic language with each other, and I think they’ve got to stop looking for ways to undermine the democratic will of the membership. That has now been plainly stated, and that’s even with something like 120,000 members not getting their vote because of the freeze. He has increased his majority – we all need to acknowledge that.

Is there anything that Corbyn’s supporters need to do – or need not to do – to contribute towards unity?

I can’t speak for the whole of Jeremy’s supporters, who are numbered in their hundreds and thousands; I know that in my Labour group, we are always bending over backwards to be friendly and to try and be positive in all of our meetings. So I think we just have to keep on being that – continue trying to win people over by and through our responses.

I was knocking doors for Labour last week in support of a local campaign protesting the planned closure of several doctors’ surgeries – I spoke to a voter on a door who said that they love the Labour party but felt unable to vote for us as long as Corbyn is leader. What should we say to voters like that?

The first thing I do is to ask them why they feel that way; most of the time, what I find is that they’ve been reading the press, which has been rabid about Jeremy Corbyn. In all the research that we and others have done, the British public agree overwhelmingly with the policies espoused by Jeremy Corbyn, so we’ve got to get on the doorstep and start talking about policies. I think that sometimes what happens in constituency Labour party groups is that people are saying “go out there and canvass but don’t mention Jeremy”. I think that we need to do the opposite – we need to go out there and talk about Jeremy and his policies all the time.

Now that Corbyn has a stronger mandate and we’ve had these two programmes on Momentum: Channel 4’s Dispatches and BBC’s Panorama, which were explanations of the group, Momentum’s role will be pivotal. How can Momentum contribute towards party unity and get its membership out on the doorstep?

I think we have to turn our base into an activist base that goes out there and starts campaigning – and doesn’t just campaign during elections but campaigns all the time, outside election time. We have to do the long campaign.

The Corbyn campaign put out a video that was subsequently withdrawn – it had been condemned by the pressure group the Campaign Against Antisemitism, which has filed a disciplinary complaint against him. What are your thoughts on the video?

I find their use of accusations of antisemitism reprehensible – I am an anti-racist campaigner and I think they debase the whole debate around anti-racism and I think they should be ashamed of themselves. There is nothing wrong with that video that anyone could look at it and say this is antisemitic. I would suggest that if people have doubt, they should look at the video and judge for themselves whether it is antisemitic.

There’s been a compliance process over the last several months that’s excluded people from the party for comments on social media. Now that Corbyn is in again, how should compliance change?

One of the issues is that we have gotten Jeremy back in as leader, but control of the NEC is still under question. Until the NEC actually accepts the recommendations of Chakrabati in terms of the workings of disciplinary procedures, then I think we’re going to be forever embroiled in these kinds of convoluted and strange disciplinary processes that no other political party would either have or put up with.

There have been rumours that Corbyn’s opponents will split from the party, or mount another leadership challenge. What do you think they’ll do?

I have absolutely no idea – there are so many permutations about how this game could now be played – and I say game because I think that there are some who are Jeremy’s opponents who kind of see it as a power game. I read a tweet somewhere saying that the purpose of this leadership election – which has damaged Labour hugely – has nothing to do with the idea that actually Owen Smith, his challenger, could have won, but is part of the process to actually undermine Jeremy. I think people like that should really think again about why they’re in the Labour party and what it is they’re doing.

Margaret Corvid is a writer, activist and professional dominatrix living in the south west.