Today, Natural England’s chair and deputy chair Tony Juniper and Lord Blencathra joined me in giving evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee on our decision to revoke three general licences for controlling wild birds. A full readout of our session will be available shortly on the EFRA Committee’s website.
Since we revoked the licences (GL04, 05, 06) on 25 April, there has been huge interest in the topic and I am grateful to the Committee for inviting us to put forward our reasons for handling the situation as we did.
The committee asked a number of questions about our decision to revoke these licences and our approach to putting in place the necessary next steps. This included detail on the timeline for our board agreeing a strategy and the timing of the legal proceedings brought by Wild Justice. We were also questioned on how we communicated with licence users, including through this blog. A summary of the legal advice upon which we acted is available on GOV.UK.
In providing a further update, I want to assure you again that my priority remains as it has been throughout the last few weeks - to make sure that people who rely on the licences to control wildlife and protect the public, their livelihoods, and wildlife can continue to do so. Thanks to our progress in bringing forward three new general licences, covering carrion crow (prevent serious damage to vulnerable livestock), wood pigeon (prevent serious damage to crops) and Canada goose (to preserve public health and safety) and in issuing individual licences, the vast majority of those who have needed to take urgent action have been able to do so. In fact, as of 17 May, over 99% of applicants for individual licences are able to take action lawfully.
In understanding our decision, it is worth looking at the background of general licences. All wild birds (and indeed much other wildlife) are protected by law under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Licences of a number of types work alongside this law to all controls where merited to protect the interests of people. General Licences were introduced in the 1990s by Defra’s predecessor, MAFF, to allow a non-bureaucratic means of legal control of bird species of low conservation concern to protect public health and safety, prevent serious damage and disease, and protect plants and wildlife. In 2004, a condition was added by Defra to the general licences which required the user to consider ‘other satisfactory solutions’ before relying on the licence – this point was the focus of Wild Justice’s legal challenge.
Upholding this licence provisions is a key part of Natural England’s role in which we need to recognise the needs of people and wildlife. Issuing licences to shoot any birds may be unpopular with some, but it is our job to weigh the evidence and make decisions.
For many years, these general licences have allowed people to take the action they need where wild birds come into conflict with the needs of people and wildlife. That’s why Natural England’s decision to revoke the three general licences, GL 04, 05 and 06, was only taken after very careful deliberation, including legal advice and consultation with Defra. Natural England explored all other options, including maintaining the licences while new ones were prepared, but in light of the legal challenge from Wild Justice we were left with no choice but to revoke them in order to comply with the law. Once we had agreed the licences were unlawful, we couldn’t wait as Wild Justice claims until 2020 to give ourselves time to bring in new licences – this would have exposed licence users to a level of risk of acting illegally which I was not prepared to consider. My priority then as now was that those who need to act could do so, within the law.
We told licence users about this change as quickly as we reasonably could, but legal constraints and the urgency of the situation allowed for very little in the way of notice or consultation and we fully understand the frustration this has caused.
We alerted user groups to the likelihood of a legal challenge on 15 March. We set out the main points of the challenge, and informed them that we intended to carry out a review of the licensing system. We were clear that the challenge raised significant questions about the robustness of these three general licences and noted that they remained in operation pending the review.
We then informed user groups of our decision to revoke the three general licences at the same time that we conceded the case with Wild Justice on 23 April. We could not do one ahead of the other. We set out the steps we planned to take to minimise disruption by setting up a fast track individual licensing system, a simple notification system for taking urgent action while awaiting an individual licence and the rapid roll out of new general licences, according to a prioritised timetable which we made available.
This of course caused a great deal of concern and uncertainty for those who use the licences. But it has also at times lead to a ‘shooting vs conservation’ debate that has been unhelpfully pitted as an argument in this case, just at a time when we need all those who have an interest and role in land management to work together to tackle catastrophic declines in wildlife. These licences are not about shooting as a lawful and legitimate sport, and never have been. They are about making sure pest controllers, farmers, conservation bodies and local authorities, among others can carry out a range of methods of lethal control where they need to. A general licence never has and does not give people an open licence to shoot as they choose.
Natural England continues to work at pace to support people who need to take action. For those who need to carry out lethal control outside the terms of the three new general licences, we have rapidly issued over 1,000 individual licences since the old general licences were taken down, processing applications for conservation purposes as a priority. We have also clarified and simplified the notification mechanism that allows people to take urgent action in some circumstances if they cannot wait for their application to be determined. It is of huge importance to me that people who need to act are clear on what is required of them to do so. Anyone who is unsure should visit our GOV.UK pages, which we’ve continued to update on a regular basis.
Defra’s call for evidence around general licensing has now closed and the Secretary of State will announce a decision on the next steps shortly.
Once again, I would like to thank people for their patience at this very difficult time. We will continue to work closely with Defra to resolve this situation as quickly and as clearly as possible taking into account the needs of wildlife and people.
Follow Natural England on Twitter, and sign up for email alerts here.
Comment by Shaun posted on
Absolute beaurocratic nonesense. Farmers have been able to protect their livestock and crops for decades under a general licence. Yet another group of idiots (supposed do gooders) decide to challenge long term policy at the risk of crops and health. The departments answer; yet more red tape. Perhaps the instigators of this troublesome issue should be billed by farmers for any loss of livestock or crops caused by their beloved pest birds. Perhaps having natures (do gooders) pay the cost/ damages of their policy changes/ challenges out of their own pockets would entice a more thought out process to their ridiculous antics. How many farmers in the uk will now suffer again from uk red tape and activist actions.
Comment by A Mitcheson posted on
***Please forward this to Marian Spain***
I watched with interest the EFRA Committee questioning, and have read your blog item above. You are keen to press the point that "the vast majority of those who have needed to take urgent action have been able to do so." However, the experience out in the field is at odds with your PR. The new wood pigeon licence for example places a huge burden on the average shooter, who typically does not have the legal or technical expertise your executive is privy to. For example, the last couple of lines state that when a pigeon shooter is approached by a police officer, he or she must show "relevant evidence to include examples of actual losses during the present year or in recent years." No one, and I can assure you not one single person, will have any kind of court-proof evidence of historical damage. They are likely to have a close working familiarity with anticipating damage before it becomes too serious - and are thus acting to prevent it. You have therefore left the vast majority of pigeon shooters exposed to potential prosecution. This is a far cry from your written promise: "priority then as now was that those who need to act could do so, within the law." Essentially the licence is at best confusing and full of contradictions - at worst it is a legal trap for the pigeon shooter.
Comment by ROBERT MAYNE posted on
The link in Para 3 does not take you to the legal advice, only to the licence application forms.
Comment by elliotanderton posted on
Thanks Robert, this has now been fixed
Comment by ROBERT MAYNE posted on
Thank you Elliot. However I had understood Ms Spain to say at the Select Committee that she would publish the legal advice given to NE - the link takes you only to a gloss by NE on that advice, not the advice itself.
The point is that if the issue is merely whether NE had not satisfied themselves at a high level of the need for lethal control, then surely that can be remedied by NE themselves, without placing the extra onerous and impractical conditions on licence users that the new licences contain.
On the occasions that I used the old GLs, I saw them as legal protection for me as much as for the birds since the circumstances in which I could use them were clear. The new licences introduce a new level of ambiguity about the actions I must take and the proof I must produce of those actions before using them.
I agree with Shaun and A Mitcheson above
Comment by A Mitcheson posted on
Why isn’t the above item on the DEFRA media blog landing page, i.e. in date order with the rest of your items? Please ensure that it is placed where it deserves to be - and not hidden away to avoid attention. It would also help if you used a different graphic, as this one has been used for other items - it needs some differentiation. How about a close up of a magpie holding song bird chick or a flock of pigeons feeding on wheat?
Comment by Iain Banks posted on
My firearms licence allows me to shoot “lawful quarry” over land I have permission. I have approximately 12 different farmers permission to shoot on their land. Do I need to go and get a written letter of permission off each of them to apply for an individual licence?
Comment by Ian mc neill posted on
I have been shooting vermin for over 40years this new licence is totally a load of crap when people like packham juniper can stop myself and 1000s other fellow shooters doing this it is a sport that also controls crop destruction and saves umpteen song birds Ian totally disgusted with groves and defray letting this carry on
Comment by Rufus Hunt posted on
Well, I have read GL31. In fact to be more precise, I have read it 3 or 4 times.
Who wrote this gibberish, has he or she ever left your offices and ventured into the country side, or visited a farm?
Tape record a Pigeons alarm call !!!!!! Where did that little pearl of wisdom come from. Get one of your legal team to describe the call, in fact get any of your staff to describe it, I am fascinated.
Model pigeons well deter incoming birds from attacking a cash crop !!!
Do you people actually believe the rubbish you write ?
You claim to advise the Government, well you dont do a very good job advising the tax paying public, so heaven help the dim wits you advise in Westminster.
Comment by Alan posted on
Would like to be kept up to date on this topic please..Thank You.
Comment by Paul McGarvey posted on
Please let common sense prevail! Reinstate the general licences and let people who know what they are doing control pest bird species as neccessary when required.