The internship felt like a game of wildlife bingo at times, with my portfolio including salmon, beavers, badgers, wild boar and even lynx. No day was the same, with my activities ranging from preparing research briefings to visiting locals in Cleethorpes to discuss the proposed onshore salmon farm. I also regularly convened meetings between academic experts, NGOs, and Baroness Bennett. Sometimes this would be centred around an active policy area, such as the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but often it was simply to explore common areas of interest and potential collaborations. These conversations were often incredibly fruitful, and usually led to the co-development of written questions to submit to government ministers.
Written questions attempt to extract information about government policies and activities and by doing so improve (in theory) accountability and transparency. In reality, you often receive a non-response with no useful information, but occasionally you get something meaningful back. For example, the government’s answer to a question about the appearance of wild boar in Dartmoor indicated that they were undertaking a review of the Feral Wild Boar Action Plan published in 2008. This was not previously known, and although the follow-up question & answer clarified that the government would not be updating the action plan, this has still to led to greater government scrutiny and engagement from researchers and NGOs interested in wild boar.
One action you can try is to write your own written question – see Hansard for contact information and examples that you can mimic for formatting and style. Unlike MPs, Peers don’t have members of staff to help manage their workload. This means that while their inboxes are very busy, they are often grateful for contributions to their work so don’t be afraid to reach out (and be persistent).
Another parliamentary tool which allows for more immediate government scrutiny is oral questions. Oral questions are less common due to the simple logistics that there are a large number of Peers and there is a limited amount time in the chamber, but I was fortunate to secure one with Baroness Bennett on wild beaver releases in England.
This was prompted by news in January that the policy supporting wild beaver releases could be blocked by Downing Street because it was viewed as a ‘Tory legacy’. This went against reams of scientific evidence in favour of beaver reintroductions and growing evidence that any impacts on farming could be managed, leading to an outcry from the conservation community, some farmers, and reportedly, government agencies too.
In response, Baroness Bennett and I co-authored a short blog and this, along with the oral question, raised the profile of the issue and forced the government to confront it in public and on the record. The government minister avoided directly answering the question, although what they did say seemed to imply that they were against the policy. The reason for their avoidance became clear the next day when the government announced that they would in fact be going ahead with wild beaver releases.
Overall, working at the interface of science and policy has given me a sense of impact, however intangible and small it may be in reality. The internship has also been incredibly enriching for my own practice, helping me to establish connections with policymakers and conservation organisations that have informed my current and future research plans. I would highly recommend the KPRI program to any King’s PhDs and Post-docs interested in policy (even if you have no prior experience like me).