by Paul Kelly
Reflections on the Mass Lobby of Parliament for Climate Change on 9th July
The day was a great opportunity for making connections around the country. Amongst others I spoke with various Diocesan Environmental Leads, ECG Group, CAFOD of course (lots of their key people were involved) and their new LiveSimply lead, Phoebe Worthington. Bishop John was there all day and was very accessible for anyone who wanted to chat with him.
I had a direct reply from Sir Julian Smith (MP for Skipton and Ripon) to my email, asking to meet in his office just before PMQs. I was the only one there, so we had a one-to-one and he didn’t sound like he was planning any other meeting. One of his assistants sat with us, in the large covered café-style meeting area in the centre of the building. Lots of other MPs were doing something similar there.
Like many, I’ve met and corresponded with the MP several times before. He’s been in our ‘safe Conservative seat’ for more than a decade and held government positions in the past. He was more relaxed than when in government and seemed more willing to share his views rather than simply the ‘party line’. I opened by asking him where he saw the country was with the issue of climate change. He clearly accepts the issue and is supportive of consistent progress to address it but keen not to create any economic stress on individuals or the country’s economy. He knows my views well (for much faster action proactively rather than waiting and being on the back foot all the time) and I’ve already written to follow-up our meeting.
He was aware of the Community Energy projects we have in Settle, and of which the Catholic Church is hoping to be a significant part, and is very supportive of them. I used the opportunity to press a previous invitation to come and see, which he accepted for the autumn. I also explained the lobby was about global debt and he seemed to agree with the problem but there wasn’t time to discuss any solutions. I mentioned my connection with CAFOD and their campaigning on the issue; he knew CAFOD and praised their work/ethos. I simply asked him to support any serious moves that would contribute to progress on the issue.
And finally, we had actually opened the conversation with Assisted Dying. I thanked him for voting against the bill after a correspondence in its earlier stages. We agreed the complexities of the issue and the need to keep pushing for more comprehensive palliative care so that people do not choose to kill themselves from believing they “have no choice.”
We covered a lot in 12 minutes, all the time there was before he dashed off to PMQs.
Was it worthwhile going all that way?
Absolutely. I am certain it’s important to meet and put faces to names, and to hear from everyday constituents about wider concerns. Every conversation helps to form opinions.
I think it’s also important to see so many people in one place at one time. It gives real impetus to the views being shared. Taking the trouble to travel, queue, etc conveys a real sense of how critical are the issues being spotlighted.