Michael Gove accused of letting grouse moor owners off the hook

There’s a fascinating article in The Guardian today about how the UK Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, appears to have held a secret meeting with wealthy grouse moor owners to encourage them to voluntarily end controversial heather burning to head off a threat of a compulsory ban by the European Commission.

Have a read of the Guardian article (here) and then have a look at this blog on the website Who Owns England, written by environmental campaigner Guy Shrubsole, whose painstaking research is revealing quite a lot about grouse moor ownership in England, including the detail behind today’s headline story.

Aside from the newsworthiness of Michael Gove’s apparent interest in protecting grouse moor owners from the potential constraints of European environmental protection regulation, there’s something else very interesting about this story, as referenced by Mark Avery this morning.

Earlier this year (March), Mark submitted several FoIs to DEFRA to ask whether Michael Gove had met with Teresa Dent (GWCT), Ian Coghill (GWCT), Nick Downshire (Jervaulx Moor) and Amanda Anderson (Moorland Association). DEFRA’s response was a bit odd – agreeing that a meeting had taken place with Teresa Dent but apparently not with the other three (see Mark’s blog here for details).

Now, have a look at the redacted list of attendees at this meeting with Michael Gove to discuss a voluntary end to heather burning, which took place on 1 February 2018 (i.e. BEFORE Mark submitted his FoI):

It’s not very helpful, is it? What is helpful though, is that whoever undertook this redaction exercise didn’t do a very good job because if you cut and paste the text in to a WORD doc, the redacted names can be seen:

Ian Coghill’s name isn’t on the list of attendees, but Nick Downshire’s name is there, as is Amanda Anderson’s. Imagine that! Mark Avery says he’s going back to DEFRA to ask for an explanation about their ‘forgetfulness’.

Another interesting angle to today’s headline story is this notion of ‘voluntary’ action. This is becoming quite a theme for grouse moor management, isn’t it? We’ve seen the so-called ‘voluntary restraint’ on the mass slaughter of mountain hares on grouse moors in Scotland (not working), the so-called voluntary regulation of game shoot management in the form of the British Game Alliance (not fit for purpose, see here and here), the recent ‘voluntary suspension’ by Strathbraan gamekeepers on killing ravens (pointless, as the waders whose chicks they were supposedly protecting have finished breeding for this year anyway), and now a ‘voluntary end’ to environmentally damaging heather burning on grouse moors.

The common demoninator in all this ‘voluntary’ action is that none of it is legally binding. So if any of these practices were to continue (and we know some of them are), the enforcement authorities wouldn’t be able to do a thing about it. Meanwhile, the grouse shooting industry and the Westminster & Scottish Governments can all pretend that grouse moor managers are truly responsible curators of the countryside, as evidenced by their ‘voluntary self-regulation’, so there’s no need to bring in any legislation to control their clearly unsustainable practices.

Great, isn’t it?

7 thoughts on “Michael Gove accused of letting grouse moor owners off the hook”

  1. can anyone explain to me how they get a meeting, get the result they want then some of them donate to the tory party without that being classed as bribery. All seems like the rich buying policy in my opinion.

  2. Not the first time I’ve had/seen a redacted document where all they have done is blank the redactions out in Word and forget to save as a PDF or similar! Including a couple about much more sensitive matters than moorlands!

  3. I would claim that it is more the letting them off the hook. NE and all those present were collaborating to get the answers the moirland association wanted. If the agreements contained things which were unlawful, and I do not know if they were, it could reasonably be described as conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, preventing subsequent prosecution.

  4. It just stinks, doesn’t it? As if we needed any more evidence of the corruption within DEFRA. Will the European Commission place the ban before Brexit as it would surely have no say after that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: