Friday, October 26, 2012

Badger Culls, P***ups and Breweries

Yesterday in Parliament witnessed an all-day debate about whether the Gov't's targeted pilot cull of badgers (taking place to establish whether it would help control bovine Tb) should go ahead or not. Interest was heightened because we had Dr Brian May in attendence. After the opening statements the debate was mainly a series of prepared speeches, with very little actual 'debating'. Opinions were being put forward as 'facts' and just repeated ad nauseum, even when it was pointed out they were not factual at all. Mr Owen Paterson, Secretary of State at Defra was reported to have left after 20 minutes having taken as much of it as he could stand - though he claims it was due to diary commitments. What we do know is that around 30,000 cattle are slaughtered every year as a result of the Bovine Tb eradication programme. We also know the cost to Gov't is around £100 million per yr (£1billion over next 10 yrs) and the human cost to livestock farmers in terms of stress and mental pressures is massive. And we also know that badgers suffer from bovine Tb and are carriers of the disease. What we do not know is what part (if any) badgers play in spreading the disease - which is why the Gov't intends to carry out a pilot cull targeted in two parts of England where the disease is most rife in order to find out.

But this post is not about Bovine Tb itself, but about what yesterday's debate teaches us about how to put forward a case to MPs. Its clear that those of us who share my approach to countryside issues have to completely rethink our strategy. Lets look at what happened. I received perhaps 100 emails from constituents opposed to a badger cull in any circumstance. Most emails were exactly the same and had clearly been prepared by some central agency. I did not receive one single constituency email in support of a cull - though I did receive well argued submissions from farmer representative organisations. I suspect every other MP was in the same position - and that everyone who spoke in favour of a cull yesterday was speaking completely against his or her constituency postbag. It's no longer enough for the NFU and others to send us excellent briefing material. They must immediately establish a unit which gathers together a million email addresses and asks them all to write to their MPs on issues that matter to them. No good complain about 38 Degrees. They do a great job for those who have signed up to their agenda. The need is to fight fire with fire. I've already told my local NFU that without a change of tactic, they  might as well wind up their parliamentary lobbying altogether.

And its worth a word about how the Gov't whips handle these issues. Yesterday's debate was a 'Backbench Debate' - and the Whip's Office reckon these debates should not be whipped. This means that since the 'payroll' do not vote on unwhipped motions, the Government will almost always lose if the motion is opposing Gov't policy. It seems the view is that since the vote is not binding, the Gov't should not be concerned. (though I do wonder whether a backbench motion of no confidence in a Gov't minister would remain unwhipped!) I had thought that this did not matter too much because the Gov't could always simply not push it to a vote. But yesterday, Labour got around this by voting both for and against the motion, forcing a division all on their own. Truth is we were comprehensively stuffed. Most Coalition MPs had left the building. I spoke near the end of the debate but had just gone when the division bell rang. The result was a 147-28 defeat for Gov't policy to proceed with a cull. Now theoretically, this has no actual impact on Gov't policy at all, but I'm not at all sure that those who watch proceedings can have a clue what's going on. Personally, last night's vote reminds me of a cross between 'Yes Minister' and 'Monty Python's Circus'.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mr Brian May

ahem

Dr Brian May

FranNewForest said...

Well, here is a comment for you. I am very disappointed that you would even think the Whips should do anything at all re a debate brought about by a public petition. Also, it will be a disgrace if the gov does not do a full U-turn on this issue now. A rather large public outcry I would say. So forget the ceremony and what you think the whips should have done. And what the NFU should have done. They didn't. And this was the time to have done it. If you cared enough about the issue, you would have stayed. If they cared enough, they would have got their own petition up and got more people to sign it. The MPs who cared, on both sides, stayed. You MPs who did not vote, and appear bemused by the affair, only have yourselves to blame, because you had to 'get away' early on a Thursday. What is more important. Getting home, obviously.

Fran Carpenter (Conservative assoc dep in New Forest) said...

Your prove you're not a robot things are really difficult to read!!! No wonder no-one posts anything!

Glyn Davies said...

Thanks anon. Corrected.

Fran - I don't write a blog for anyone to read. I write them as aform of thinking aloud, getting my own thoughts in order. Bearing in mind your comment, I'm most surprised that you bother reading it! I think many will agree with you that the vote should influence Gov't policy, which is why a motion which directly opposes Gov't policy should be whipped (inmy opinion). And you should not assume that an MP leaving the House early when there is no vote is just to get home.

FranNewForest said...

I am very interested to read as much as possible about this issue, from all sides. (We are not all from a 'central organisation', although I'm affiliated to Team Badger - Blue Badger, Conservatives Against the Badger Cull (dep of an association), but I act as me mostly!) And the petition was certainly not a rounding up of extremists, it is full of ordinary folk, of all persuasions, from all round the country. I am also interested in how this will develop from now, and the place of any whip, which I sincerely hope will never be used in a vote on this subject. (And apologies if you didn't have to get away early, but that's what usually happens according to the MPs I know!) Also, I'd be incredibly disappointed myself if now the powers that be took no notice of this debate and fixed it. It would look very bad from the outside. One last thing, Mr Paterson, I feel quite sorry for him (but not really, serves him right). He is now the a 'badger flashman' as far as badger/animal lovers across the country are concerned! Please tell him to lay off the RSPCA, they are quite within their rights to say what they have and thank goodness they do! Far too late now, so will say goodnight! Kind regards, Fran.

FranNewForest said...

One last thing, which I hope the government will realise, is that when the argument is so split, and there are arguments both sides, which basically will never agree, I always feel it should be a case of not doing something and thinking again to see if there is something much better and acceptable to all. There usually is. When I was a planning councillor, if there was so much hoo hah about a big plan, I'd err on the side of 'vote against it' and insist the developer rethink it, come back and make it better for both sides. Ploughing on only ever caused grief, accusations of bullying, corruption, mass anger and resentment. Just a thought. (Especially if the Conservatives want to get in with a majority next time!!)

Anonymous said...

I am astounded by the poor understanding of the issues displayed by Westminster MPs compared to the in depth understanding by some Welsh AMs. In Westminster you still have idiots who think that transmissibility between badgers and cattle unproven; trot out the truncated phrase 'meaningful contribution' from the Krebs report; fail to understand the nature of natural boundaries in perturbation; fail to grasp multi-dimensional contribution of transmission vectors; fail to understand the population density and life cycle barriers to perturbation of the vaccine in the target species or the critical nature of post mortem data on infection. To be honest, the Westminster debates are like a group of whingeing teenagers. Can't you do something down in that oak panelled museum, Glyn? The science clearly indicates a need for trap and cull in bTB hotspots where natural perturbation boundaries exist AND the use of vaccination in areas of low population densities as a holistic approach to tackling the badger transmission vector. I almost fell off my tractor when the MPs got Brian May to provide 'evidence' to the committee Are we going to get Frank Zappa to give evidence on aerobic decay in silage? The political decisions are characterised by cowardice in Wales and ignorance at Westminster.

Anonymous said...

Ahem...

Dr Brian May (in astrophysics).

a bit like

Dr Rosie Woodroffe (in Philosophy)