Blog

A few of our regular blog followers have previously commented about the apparent lack of interest in illegal raptor persecution by many mainstream journalists. Well here’s one (of several) bucking the trend – Mark Macaskill from the Sunday Times (Scotland), who has, over the years, written quite a few articles on the subject, including this one published today on the absurdity of Natural England seeing nothing wrong in the government’s policy of issuing licences for controlling protected species to people who might previously have been convicted of wildlife crime.

Last week we mentioned that further information had emerged about the licences to control buzzards recently issued by Natural England. We said we were seeking legal advice about what information we could and couldn’t publish. That legal consultation has resulted in a decision to publish the following information.

We discovered the name of the buzzard licence applicant last week. Interestingly, someone with the same name, from the same region, and working in the same industry (gamekeeping) was previously convicted for offences relating to banned poisons. It must be just another one of those freak coincidences that seem to pop up with unequal probablity within the world of gamekeeping.

According to legal advice we are at liberty to publish the name of the licence applicant under certain conditions. However, we have chosen not to identify him or to publish any detail that might lead to his subsequent identification. His identity is not important here; there is a wider issue of concern and revealing his identity would not add anything of importance to the debate. Besides, in the context of his licence application he hasn’t done anything illegal; it is not an offence to apply for a licence to control protected species.

So, his identity doesn’t interest us. What does interest us a great deal is a government policy that might enable someone with recent and relevant criminal convictions to be considered as a suitable recipient for a licence to control a protected species.

Natural England’s species licensing role is governed and authorised by DEFRA policy. Within DEFRA’s species licensing policy statement are a number of criteria that should be met by the licensing agency (in this case, Natural England) when assessing a licence application. One of them is that ‘the suitability of the applicant to carry out licensed activities’ must be assessed. That this criterion even exists indicates that DEFRA recognises that unsuitable candidates may apply for a licence and they provide an option (to the licensing agency) for refusing a licence on that basis.

So, just how is ‘the suitability of an applicant’ assessed? It seems to be a subjective test as we couldn’t find any guidelines on the subject. Would someone with recent and relevant convictions be considered a ‘suitable applicant’? What would be the justification for that?

Natural England has already confirmed that relevant past convictions are assessed during the licensing process. Last week, many of you (thank you!) wrote to Natural England to ask for clarification about whether the buzzard licence applicant had an un-spent work-related conviction at the time of his application. On Monday (June 3^rd), Natural England responded by issuing a refusal notice, saying they weren’t prepared to divulge that information. In that refusal notice is the following statement:

“You may find it helpful to know that it is part of Natural England’s standard procedures to ask all licence applicants for information on relevant past convictions. This information is taken into consideration in the assessment of the application. For example, this may lead to a more in-depth assessment of the application or additional monitoring of licensed actions. However the fact that a person has a previous wildlife related conviction (whether spent or not) does not automatically bar them for obtaining a licence and each licence application is judged on its merits”.

So, did Natural England consider relevant past convictions when assessing this licence application? They certainly mention previous convictions in their Technical Assessment of Application report (see the FoI documents), although the detail of those convictions has been redacted. However, there is no mention anywhere else in this assessment report about an assessment of those convictions or their relevance to this particular licence application, so either Natural England didn’t formally assess them, or they did and just redacted their assessment. There’s so much blacked out text throughout the whole document that it’s impossible to tell.

An interesting aspect in all this is the considerable weight that Natural England placed on the evidence (of supposed raptor predation of poults) provided by the applicant. Indeed, Natural England wrote the following in their technical assessment report:

“Conclusions & Justification [of the application]: The quantity and quality of information and evidence provided for this case by the applicant appears to be thorough, systematic and accurate for this type of case”.

Put yourself in the shoes of a Natural England employee charged with assessing licensing applications to control protected species. Would you consider the evidence of a recently convicted criminal as being trustworthy and reliable?

One final point, and equally as interesting. The National Gamekeepers Organisation has repeatedly and publicly stated that illegal gamekeeping activity will not be tolerated within their organisation. We know from the FoI documents that the buzzard licence applicant is a member of the NGO. Last week we (and many of you, thank you) asked them to answer the following question:

“Bearing in mind the NGO’s published Disciplinary Procedure, did this gamekeeper [i.e. the buzzard licence applicant] have an un-spent work-related conviction at the time of his application and has he ever been suspended or expelled as a member of the National Gamekeepers Organisation?”

They still haven’t answered.

Last Thursday we blogged about the buzzard licensing scandal and how new information had come to light (see here). We are still in the middle of taking legal advice on what information we can and can’t release.

We also posed two questions; one to Natural England and one to the National Gamekeepers Organisation:

Question to the National Gamekeepers Organisation: “Bearing in mind the NGO’s published Disciplinary Procedure (see here), did this gamekeeper have an un-spent work-related conviction at the time of his application and has he ever been suspended or expelled as a member of the National Gamekeepers Organisation?”

So far, the NGO has refused to answer.

Question to Natural England: “Did this gamekeeper have an un-spent work-related conviction at the time of his application?”

Today, Natural England has issued a refusal notice, i.e. they are refusing to confirm or deny that they hold any details about convictions on the licence application.

Here is a copy of that refusal notice: 2018_response_RD_tcm6-36002

Natural England claim that the information we have asked for falls into the ‘personal information’ category as defined under the Data Protection Act 2000. As such, they consider it would be ‘unfair’ to disclose the information requested.

We disagree with them. If this individual did have a wildlife crime conviction at the time of his application, then details of that conviction would be a matter of public record, therefore it wouldn’t qualify as protected personal information.

The information we asked for was not, ‘What was the applicant’s conviction?’, it was ‘Did he have a conviction?‘ Natural England could have answered our question with a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. By doing so, the disclosure of the information would not breach the individual’s privacy as the information could not be used to identify him. The question is not so much about the gamekeeper per se, but it is central to questions about Natural England’s policy on licence applications to destroy protected species and/or their nests and eggs. We believe that scrutiny of their policy is very much in the public interest.

As Natural England has issued a refusal notice, we intend to challenge it by asking for a review. We would encourage blog readers to also challenge it. If you’re not sure how to phrase it, you could always just cut and paste the following:

To: foi@naturalengland.org.uk

Dear Natural England,

Thank you for your refusal notice to prevent disclosure of whether the buzzard licence applicant had an un-spent work-related conviction at the time of his application.

I would like to request a review of your decision.

I don’t believe that the disclosure of the information I have requested meets the criteria as defined in the Data Protection Act, because a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer would suffice. A ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer would not compromise the privacy (hidden identity) of the buzzard licence applicant, but it would inform a wider debate on the policy used by Natural England to issue licences to destroy protected species and/or their nests and eggs. This is clearly in the pubic interest.

I look forward to hearing from you.

And if you’re in an email-writing mood, let’s keep up the pressure on the National Gamekeepers Organisation to answer this very simple question:

To: info@nationalgamekeepers.org.uk

Dear Lindsay Waddell,

Bearing in mind the NGO’s published Disciplinary Procedure, did this gamekeeper have an un-spent work-related conviction at the time of his application and has he ever been suspended or expelled as a member of the National Gamekeepers Organisation?

It would appear there’s more to Buzzardgate #2 than first meets the eye.

Apart from the scandalous decision by Natural England (acting on behalf of DEFRA) to issue a licence to a gamekeeper to destroy the nests and eggs of a native species (buzzard) to protect a non-native species bred for sport shooting (pheasant) (see here for previous blog entry on this), further information has come to light.

At this stage we are unwilling to publish the information or reveal how the information can be found. We are seeking legal advice and will come back to the subject if we’re able once the legalities have been clarified.

In the meantime, we would like to ask two important questions, one of Natural England (who worked with this gamekeeper over a period of years and subsequently issued his licence), and one of the National Gamekeepers Organisation (who submitted the licence application on behalf of one of their members). We would encourage blog readers to also ask these questions as we believe they are of public interest:

1. To Janette Ward (janette.ward@naturalengland.org.uk), Director of Regulation at Natural England, who endorsed the issue of this licence:

Question: Did this gamekeeper have an un-spent work-related conviction at the time of his application?

2. To Lindsay Waddell (info@nationalgamekeepers.org.uk), Chairman of the National Gamekeepers Organisation:

Question: Bearing in mind the NGO’s published Disciplinary Procedure (see here), did this gamekeeper have an un-spent work-related conviction at the time of his application and has he ever been suspended or expelled as a member of the National Gamekeepers Organisation?

An article in The Guardian has revealed that the UK’s nature conservation agency, Natural England, has licensed the secret destruction of buzzard eggs and nests to protect a pheasant shoot.

This destruction, which took place in the last few weeks, was only revealed after a Freedom of Information request was made by the RSPB. According to the article, the National Gamekeepers Organisation was ‘closely involved in winning the licences and had threatened Natural England with judicial review if they were not granted’.

Given that the buzzard (and other raptors) are native species with supposed full legal protection, the RSPB is considering its legal options.

The location of the pheasant shoot has not (yet) been revealed, as Natural England stated the case was “emotive and sensitive” and cited “public safety”. Interestingly, this is the same argument the Scottish Government recently tried to use to hide the identities of seal-shooting salmon farms in Scotland. That decision was over-ruled last month by the Scottish Freedom of Information watchdog and the Scottish Government was forced to name the locations (see here).

Article in The Guardian here.

If you want to let DEFRA Minister Richard Benyon know how you feel about this disgusting precedent, email him at: richard.benyon.mp@parliament.uk

The RSPB’s Conservation Director, Martin Harper, has posted all the FoI documents on his blog here.

UPDATE 13.00hrs: Natural England has released what it calls a ‘mythbuster’ about this controversial licence here. The header is ‘Full details of buzzard nest control licence’, only it isn’t the ‘full details’ – the majority of the data have been redacted, which means we can’t assess the scientific evidence used by NE to approve this licence. Where’s the transparency?

If you want to email Natural England and tell them what you think about their decision to licence buzzard control, contact them at: wildlife@naturalengland.org.uk

UPDATE 16.00hrs: An interesting update from the RSPB’s Martin Harper on DEFRA’s deceit here

UPDATE 18.30hrs: An excellent analysis of Natural England’s decision, written by blogger Alan Tilmouth here

UPDATE 22.00hrs: Further evidence, should you need it, that the UK’s government agency for nature conservation is sitting comfortably in the hands of the game-shooting industry – this is absolutely shocking – read it here.