Tuesday’s session where the Secretary of State for Defra chatted to the Efra Committee about general licences was puzzling and fascinating. I’ve listened to it three times now and I’m not entirely sure what is going on.
Here is the link to the session. If any readers of this blog wish to help me by explaining or speculating on where this is all going then feel free (politely) to do so.
But here are some tentative conclusions I draw from this session:
- Defra’s three general licences issued in June are only seen as a temporary regime – they are regarded as serviceable by Mr Gove, but Defra is expecting Wild Justice to be considering a legal challenge of those licences (he is right about that and Wild Justice is expecting important information from Defra/NE this very week and early next week).
- Something happened in 2014 that made a legal challenge in 2019 more likely to succeed – but we aren’t told what it was. Mr Gove was keen that the Committee looked at NE’s decision-making in 2014 but refused to be clearer than that. The Committee, led by Lord Blencathra’s previous evidence, was looking for impacts of political pressure on NE. Mr Gove seemed to intimate that any political pressure might not have come from politicians. I’m confused but intrigued.
- Mr Gove holds the bizarre view that gamekeepers and farmers understood the old general licences and understand the new ones. Given that the Chair of the Efra Committee, Neil Parish MP is a farmer, it would be difficult to hold Mr Gove’s view since there was little understanding of either the previous or current situation demonstrated by Mr Parish. If Mr Parish doesn’t understand these licences, and I have some sympathy with him, then how can ordinary farmers without the advantages that Mr Parish has in his position, be expected to understand them? Indeed, Mr Parish was clear that he thought that farmers had believed that the previous licences gave farmers more rights to exercise lethal control than was actually the case. A major problem with these general licences is a complete lack of understanding of their provisions and the circumstances under which they can be relied upon. This needs to be recognised by Defra.
- Mr Gove said some nice things about Chris Packham (‘the behaviour of people toward Chris Packham is appalling’) and no nasty things about Wild Justice. His performance was polite, pretty well-informed and impressively slippery.
- The revoked general licences were ‘not a seaworthy vessel’ and NE had no option but to revoke them. In other words, Wild Justice was absolutely right.
- Defra will respond to the general licence consultation soon, very soon.
- When Mr Gove was asked whether Defra had been aware of any legal problems with the general licences he said that he wasn’t. He was not pressed to answer the question of whether at any time Defra had been aware, or whether NE had been aware, of the serious legal problems with the general licences. The Committee allowed this important question to remain unanswered.
- There was a totally bizarre passage where the Chair was talking about Canada Geese which I failed completely to understand. I suspect that nobody, including Mr Gove and Mr Parish really understood it either.
- Angela Smith MP asked some good questions about enforcement of compliance – there were no good answers. She also asked some excellent questions about the state of Natural England where Mr Gove got a bit irritated and his oleaginous mien slipped quite sharply. Anyone not knowing anything about the subject would look and listen to that passage of the session and wonder what was really going on as the man in charge appeared less assured than in the rest of the session.
Imagine a situation where farmers/gamekeepers had to demonstrate compliance? Each farm/moor/wood would need a document repository and probably a full time QA manager keeping all the proof of compliance up to date. Just imagine the resistance from the rural community. Then there are routine audits. No wonder he tries to skirt over it, he just hopes it’ll all go underneath your radar.
Gerard – the general licences have long been misunderstood, ignored, unenforced and have not worked for wildlife.
Yes, just imagine having to demonstrate the need for lethal control before killing native wildlife. Incredible, isn’t it? Just how does every other industry cope with ‘paper work’ in the year 2019. A complete mystery.
Huge inconsistencies between farming/land management and the rest of the world. Network Rail for instance survey and mark bushes with for e.g. nesting blackbirds so that those bushes don’t get cleared from the trackside during the breeding season. My Local Authority delayed work on a school planned for the summer holidays because of the presence of nesting house martins yet a farmer can turn up at a field with nesting lapwing, see them flying about and proceed to roll that field, nests, eggs, fledglings and all. I’ve never understood how that isn’t deliberate or reckless…oh and then go on to blame (all) corvids for the loss of waders in the countryside.
“… how does every other industry cope …”
Nobody knows.
What happens to the paperwork?
Nobody knows.
Does anybody read it?
Catch-22 is on tonight
The crux of much of this, is what happened in 2014?
One might speculate that in 2014, NE knew full well that the licences were unlawful. That they were on the point of recommending changing them and that mysteriously political pressure was then put on them not to do so. This pressure coming from farming and shooting interests with a nod and a wink from Patterson/Truss. This pressure presumably falling on Andrew Sells, well known Tory Party donor and Chair of Natural England. Conveniently Liz Truss then pulls the consultation around the licences. All very cosy.
The other interesting thing I took away was that Michael Gove repeatedly talked about damage to crops and livestock but barely a reference to game birds. Grouse and pheasants once released are of course not livestock.
I think once all the evidence is submitted in the full consultation later this year that the strength of the case for GLs will be greater than ever. As the Chairman points out many times, the evidence base is the only thing missing. If NE can see and prove to the public the damage done and by what species and under what circumstances, they can have the strong base to say that land managers can use their discretion on whether to use lethal force or not. The idea that an army of NE officers will be combing every nook and cranny of the countryside monitoring non-lethal methods prior to allowing lethal ones is totally unworkable and ridiculous. Why should a farmer or gamekeeper or pest controller ( a professional land manager in their own right) not have the right to make that decision themselves?
S – you’ll find that the evidence base for some species is lacking. You watch and see!
Do you have the science to justify killing Jackdaws to conserve any birds? GWCT didn’t in their submission.
Looks like S gets all his/her “evidence” from the Daily Mail.
The pest birds on the GLs are not in decline rather we are told their numbers are increasing year on year so surly the ability of a farmer to protect his livelihood and feed the nation should not be an issue.
If a pest bird on the GL list declines significantly then simply remove it from the GL.
Surly their are a lot of much bigger issues facing all our wildlife like global warming, the use of plastics, domestic cats, fish quotas, Japan deplorable decisions to restart commercial whaling.
Show that you are not just all about anti shooting and start campaigning on these other issues with the same enthusiasm.
John – there is no definition of a pest bird and all wild birds are protected by law. There are lots of more inmportant things than the general licences and some of us have indeed campaigned on many of them in our lives. You and others seem to forget that we haven’t changed the law, but the previous licensing regime was unlawful. Presumably you would like people to stick to the law. If yiou don’t like the law as it is then it is you who needs to start campaigning but snce this is such a trivial issue I’m guessing you will not…
I think you’ll find a lot of us are already campaigning on these issues and others, if we were in fact only campaigning about General Licences it would still be a considerable improvement on those who campaign on absolutely nothing. I am trying to recall when those glorious ‘conservation’ organisations the Moorland Association, GWCT, BASC, Scottish Gamekeepers Association etc have tried to rouse their members about oil palm plantations, plastics in the sea, trade in endangered species or a kindred other topics. It seems their definition of conservation doesn’t involve anything not attached to field sports, killing predators mainly. Shame all those shooters trying to stop lead ammunition being phased out had instead been worried about marine plastic waste, an end to lead shot and a bit further along the road in solving a marine crisis if they had. I also wonder why the farming community that is so worried about feeding the nation and conserving our wildlife as we are told they are, aren’t kicking up hell about the third of our food that goes in the bin? One hell of a lot more land for nature if we cut that.
re. your last bullet point, Mark, – I think it’s clear what Gove was getting at in relation to NE. He didn’t name names, but he’s blaming NE’s performance on Stewardship and on licences on the previous Chief Executive and Chair – the implication being that the action he took was to rectify this. (47% cuts obviously make no difference!).
Hi Mark, – if the evidence proves that Jackdaws dont have an impact on birds then I’m sure no one using GLs would question them being removed from that specific GL.
My point was that the evidence will strengthen the case for the need for GLs and lay a base that shows its is ok that people ( some of whom are licensed to own firearms) and who understand the damage done and by what species can make the decision on when to use lethal methods or not, without the formal approval and check from an individual from NE or Defra first.
As Michael Gove eludes to in the interview, the crux of the issue with WJ is they seem to want to see a system where everyone using the GLs needs to be pre-checked by NE or Defra that they are using them correctly. In my opinion (and I think that of anyone with an ounce of common sense), everyday people use their discretion on whether to conform with or break a law. The police are there to enforce law and the courts there to bring those who dont to justice. Imagine if the police had to check each individual before they acted on everything related to a law? That is what you are asking NE or Defra to do…you are removing the discretion of the user (who must act within the law!) to make a decision…why??? Everyday people use their discretion on staying within the law and its fine, and why would a person using the GLs be any different?
I think its just to stick a knife in the shooting community (and waste huge amounts of public money) nothing else.
Finally, on the Daily Mail point, I must admit, you got me, I do occasionally read snippets of this newspaper and Guardian while sitting on the toilet just before I wipe with it 🙂
S – Michael Gove did not say that about Wild Justice. He did seem to understand that matter quite well. I was impressed.
What you ask us to imagine is not what anyone, and in particuklar Wild Jsutice, has suggested.
Mark – does WJ agree that the user of the GL should be able to take the decision to use lethal methods, in line with the conditions of the GL, without prior check and approval from NE or Defra?
S should start reading some simple works on Ornithology, rather than parroting the lies of those who assume that a flat hat and Barbour are badges of authority.
“alludes”