Website Content

Jump to footer

Fresh face on the rural beat keen to exploit forest victory

THIS IS CORNWALL
5 March 2011
On Forestry, Floods and Badgers . . . 
Mary Creagh is Labour’s spokesman on rural matters, a tough beat given the party’s questionable legacy in the countryside. London Editor Graeme Demianyk speaks to her about an early win on forests and “catastrophic” flood defence spending cuts.

Mary Creagh fronted a well-co-ordinated campaign against forest sell-offs

Mary Creagh fronted a well-co-ordinated campaign against forest sell-offs

It has been a good couple of weeks for Mary Creagh. The Labour party's environment spokesman can claim one of the biggest coalition Government scalp to date: the U-turn on forests.

Given the public outcry at plans to sell off state-owned woodlands, the MP for Wakefield in Yorkshire was perhaps pushing at a door that was already ajar. Conservatives and Liberal Democrat MPs, including those in the Westcountry, were clearly spooked by the reaction from constituents. But Mrs Creagh's criticism of her counterpart, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman, was stinging and effective.

Her offensive included claims that the sell-off was "economic madness" (not least because taxpayers are only investing 30p per person per year "and it's been sold for 30 pieces of silver"). That letting the private sector in any further was tantamount to "sheer vandalism" also hit home.

Labour also ran a well co-ordinated campaign. Ms Creagh wrote to coalition MPs with more than 1,000 hectares of public forestry land in their constituency, urging them to listen to public opinion. Handily, the list of MPs targeted was handed to the Press. Missives went to Conservatives Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon), Mel Stride (Central Devon) and Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset). Liberal Democrats Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) and Jeremy Browne (Taunton) were also lobbied.

Central to the Government plan – which would potentially have affected 200 woodlands across the South West – was the Government's contention that the Forestry Commission, which manages state forests, was also the single biggest operator of woodlands. It holds 18 per cent of the nation's estate.

Not an issue, Ms Creagh claimed, as the regulator argument only works if there is a monopoly. "That's just political cover to shrink the size of the state," she said. "It's a purely ideological move. Nobody could understand the problem they were trying to fix."

The Government points out that under 13 years of Labour rule thousands of acres of forest had been sold off, so their position in Opposition should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Indeed, Ms Creagh admits under Labour the policy would not have been frozen in aspic. Labour would have "stopped the Forestry Commission from growing row upon row of conifers".

She added: "We've made them more commercially focused so we now have things like forest lodges. Commercial Christmas trees sales. Rock concerts in the forest. We need to see that work continuing."

Mrs Spelman abandoned the forests consultation, which would have led to England's public forest estate being off-loaded to companies, communities and charities, after being railroaded by David Cameron. He refused to back the policy at Prime Ministers's Questions the day earlier, paving the way for Mrs Spelman to announce an embarrassing climb-down to MPs.

"I am sorry, we got this one wrong, but we have listened to people's concerns," Mrs Spelman said.

It is unlikely that will be the end of the matter. A new independent panel has been set up to consider forestry policy in England, reporting back in the autumn. It means that the future of Haldon Forest near Exeter, Cann Woods on the edge of Plymouth, and most of Cardinham near Bodmin – which are among the most well-known woodlands in the region – is far from certain.

Many countryside campaigners, including the RSPB and the Country Land and Business Association, think reform is essential. They say areas of heathland and native woodland have been "defaced" by commercial conifer plantations, and argue timber yards run by the Forestry Commission should be handed over to the private sector.

In the meantime, Ms Creagh is keen to exploit the notion that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have let their grip on countryside matters slip. "If (Ms Spelman) won't stand up for the countryside, we on this side most certainly will," she told MPs when the plans to scrap the sell-off were revealed.

The comments elicited laughter from the Opposition benches, doubtless over perceptions that Labour was a less than competent custodian of rural areas during its tenure. Under Labour, hundreds of rural post offices were closed, an acute shortage of housing developed and bovine tuberculosis brought misery to farmers. The bungled handling of the foot-and-mouth crisis – exactly 10 years ago – also informed many people's view of Labour in the rural Westcountry.

Ms Creagh, in fairness, was only elected to Parliament in 2005. Her appointment as Shadow Environment Secretary represents the first time she has sat on her party's front benches. For instance, she was a councillor in Islington, North London, when foot and mouth brought the Westcountry to its knees.

Appointing a fresh face to the rural brief – unburdened by the legacy of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – was a shrewd move on leader Ed Miliband's behalf, even if Ms Creagh represents an urban constituency in the north of England. Indeed, there has also been some success on what is arguably a more significant aspect of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) funding, the Whitehall department she monitors.

Spending on flood and tidal defences is the biggest component of Defra's budget. Ministers contend they have protected spending as much as they can against cuts. But Ms Creagh argues they were too quick to agree a settlement with the Treasury in the spending review, and the consequences are now emerging. Nationally, around £521 million will be spent on protecting homes and businesses in England from April – down from around £590 million spent on capital and revenue in previous years.

The South West will be hit too. Funding for vital flood defence schemes in the South West is to be cut by 16 per cent next year.

While officials have refused to produce a list of projects that will not get state aid as a result, the region will be starved of £6 million in 2011/12.

Given that the region has been devastated by floods wrought on Boscastle, Ottery St Mary and mid Cornwall in recent years, the cuts have raised concern.

Despite Government protestations to the contrary, Ms Creagh says the reduced pool of funding will undermine the deal with the insurance industry to offer universal cover. The so-called statement of principles expires in 2013.

Ms Creagh argues that the deal struck with insurers after 2007 was predicated on raising investment on flood defence spending by more than inflation every year.

She said: "They guaranteed universal flood defence insurance. But the insurance industry has already said all bets are off after 2013. They said it was bad news for consumers, good news for brokers.

"The insurance industry is saying people will have to go to specialist flood insurers. People will see their excesses rise. The worst case scenario is that people's homes are uninsurable, which means they are unmortgageable, which means you can't sell them."

In turn, the Government becomes the insurer of last resort, and taxpayers' will be forced to bail people out. It could be "catastrophic".

Farmers are also showing signs of disquiet over the Con-Lib coalition, she claims. Ministers are signalling "mixed messages" over Common Agricultural Policy reform, with comments ranging from the need to get rid of direct payments to Mr Cameron promising the French there will be no change.

There are other problems. "The supermarket ombudsman was promised, but nothing seems to be happening with that. We know there are problems for the diary industry. We know feed prices are higher, we know energy prices are higher, we know the strains farmers are under. The measures to work and mitigate those pressures seem to be coming out very slowly."

But farmers want to see a cull of badgers to curb the spread of bovine TB, something the coalition has said it favours (although there are signs it might change its mind). Labour, by contrast, was dead against a cull.

Ms Creagh said: "The scientific advice was very clear: the perturbation effect of any sort of cull moves the disease out from the area and does not eventually tackle it. Which is why we were investing in badger vaccine trials. The Government has now cut demonstration areas. You can't talk about a science-led approach and then cut the experiment that would tell you what will work."

She also has reservations about farmers carrying out any cull themselves under licence. "I'm sure some farmers will welcome that. But I think there are animal welfare issues, because badgers are a protected species. There are potentially border issues: I think there are a lot of people who do not want to see a badger cull.

"This a policy that is not scientifically proven. People can do something but whether that activity will actually make things better, will not be measured, monitored or controlled.

"The Government's approach is do-it-yourself on a shoestring at night with a few of your friends. I genuinely don't think it's going to work."

Expect her to make this very point if the Government makes another U-turn.

Past News

brianmay.com
Bookmark and Share