Category: Opinion

Iceland (the supermarket) really wants us to believe that the food they sell is “food you can trust“. It’s their tagline. It appears twice on the front of this store we recently visited. If the customer fails to notice it as they enter the shop they get another opportunity to read it as they walk away. It’s clearly an important marketing strategy for this company.

It’s an interesting word, ‘trust’. Synonyms include ‘confidence’, ‘belief’, ‘faith’, ‘sureness’, ‘certainty’, ‘assurance’. It implies ‘freedom from suspicion/doubt’.

Antonyms include ‘disbelief’, ‘doubt’, ‘uncertainty’, ‘distrust’.

“Food you can trust” is certainly an interesting choice of tagline. As consumers, we might all expect the food we buy from high street supermarkets to be trustworthy, yes? Well, no, as the recent horse meat scandal showed. In fact it was as a result of the horse meat scandal that Iceland rolled out this tagline in a bid to reassure customers of the quality of its foods. Since then, Iceland has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that nay, their beefburgers do not contain horse (see here). Marvellous, what a comfort.

But what about trusting other food sold by Iceland? Say, red grouse for example? As regular blog readers will be aware, this summer Iceland began selling frozen red grouse that was shot last year. When this news broke in July, we had a number of questions to ask of Iceland (see here) about how the sale of this product fitted in with their published statement on corporate responsibility, especially as they claim to be “committed to providing safe, healthy and ethically sourced food”. We wondered how Iceland could meet these standards when Marks and Spencer had abandoned their red grouse sales for two years running (here and here) because they couldn’t meet their own ethical standards?

Sadly, Iceland CEO Malcolm Walker failed to respond directly to our questions – he was probably too busy being trustworthy – and instead Iceland published a rather vague statement on its website (see here). Incidentally, it was noted in the August 2015 minutes of the Lead Ammunition Group meeting that ‘the Iceland supermarket website information on game was not in line with current Food Standards Agency guidance’ (see here).

Following Iceland’s press statement, we asked more questions of Malcolm Walker, specifically about our concerns (distrust) that the red grouse being sold in his supermarkets could be described as safe, healthy and ethically sourced (see here). Alas, it seems that being ‘trustworthy’ doesn’t include being transparent about the food supply chain – Mr Walker has refused to answer the questions. So instead of being filled with ‘confidence’,’ belief’, ‘faith’, ‘sureness’, ‘certainty’ and ‘assurance’, we are left with ‘disbelief’, ‘doubt’, ‘uncertainty’ and ‘distrust’ of this product.

We’ve got a feeling this won’t be the last we hear about Iceland red grouse this year…..

 

In July 2013, the then Environment Minister, Paul Wheelhouse MSP announced a series of new measures to tackle the raptor killers. One of these new measures was to give SNH the authority to issue a (temporary) restriction order on the use of General Licences on land where evidence of raptor crime was apparent. The restriction order could be applied retrospectively to incidents that had taken place since 1st January 2014. (See here to read SNH’s framework for implementing such restrictions).

In October 2014, this measure was finally rolled out and we blogged about these General Licence restriction orders, outlining our view on the pros and cons of this approach (see here).

Since then we’ve wondered a number of times about when we might see the first restriction order, because let’s face it, there have been numerous opportunities to apply it. In January this year we asked SNH whether a restriction order had been applied to an estate where a poisoned red kite had been found in July 2014 (see here). A response came back from SNH in February that said no restriction orders had yet been implemented for this case or for any other case (see here).

Roll forward six months to August 2015 (two years after Wheelhouse first announced this new measure) and an FoI was submitted to SNH to find out if any progress has been made. It seems it has.

According to SNH’s response, two (unnamed) estates have been notified of SNH’s intention to restrict the use of General Licences; one was notified on 11th June 2015 and the other on 22nd July 2015. As predicted, and judging by (a) the number of letters SNH says it has sent in relation to these two estates (five), and (b) the length of time that has elapsed since the notification letters were sent, it would appear that both estates have challenged the notification of intent. This was to be expected, of course, especially as SNH can use the civil burden of proof rather than the criminal burden of proof as evidence of suspected raptor crime.

It’ll be interesting to see how this all pans out.

In the meantime, here is SNH’s response to the FoI questions:

How many letters of intention to restrict the use of a General Licence has SNH issued to date?

SNH has issued five letters notifying our intention to restrict the use of General Licences on certain areas of land. These five letters relate to two specific proposed restriction areas.

The name of the estate(s) that has received a letter of intention to restrict the use of General Licences.

We have considered this part of your request very carefully, and we have concluded that we are unable to provide this information in response to your request.

The framework for implementing General Licence restrictions is set out on our website, http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1417398.pdf. Although letters have been issued, we have not reached final decisions on whether restrictions on the use of General Licences should be implemented in those cases. After we issue a notification letter, the recipient (the Affected Parties) has the opportunity to submit a response setting out any reasons why they consider that a restriction should not be imposed. SNH will review any submission before reaching a decision on whether or not a restriction should be imposed.

Whilst this decision making process is still underway we consider that it would be unfair to release the names of the estates/land holdings that have received letters. The Affected Parties have not yet had full opportunity to make representations, or for those representations to be considered. We are therefore withholding the names of the estates/land holdings under EIRs Regulation 10(5)(b) (The course of justice), and we have concluded that, in this case, it is in the public interest to do so.

At the end of the decision making process, where we recommend a restriction is imposed, the Decision Notice(s) will be published on our licensing web pages, http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/species-licensing/, and the information will be fully in the public domain.

The reason(s) given for the intention to restrict the use of General Licences on the landholding(s).

In each of the cases the reason has been that we have received evidence of wild birds being killed illegally, or that there have been attempts to take wild birds illegally either on that land or by persons responsible for managing that land.

The date(s) the letter(s) of intention was sent.

The notification letters were sent out on 11 June 2015 and 22 July 2015 for each respective proposed restriction area.

The start date and end date of the General Licence restriction period (in each case).

These cases are ongoing – no Decision Notice has been issued as of yet.

What measures will be taken to monitor compliance with any General Licence restriction order.

When a restriction is implemented this will mean that General Licences will not be permitted to be used on the land in question. This would mean that any control of wild birds on the land in question would be unlawful (unless covered by an individual licence). As is the case with any area of wildlife crime the policing of this would fall to the appropriate enforcement body, and particularly the Police. We would of course continue to engage with the Police and others in the event of a restriction being put in place to ensure that all were aware of the details of any restriction in this respect.

END

On Wednesday last week (4th September) we encouraged blog readers to contact SNH and Natural England to ask whether they would provide guidance on the lawfulness of deploying gas gun bird scarers on grouse moors (see here).

SNH responded quickly (9th September) with the following statement:

SNH will soon be publishing a review of sustainable moorland management written on behalf of the SNH Scientific Advisory Committee, and a formal response to that report.  Although not raised in the preparation of the review report the issue of gas guns has since been raised.  We will be investigating the deployment of these scaring devices with regard to the law, and specifically with regard to recent guidance we have issued on Schedule A1 and 1A species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: here.  Depending on our investigations we may provide further guidance, as we did in June this year in relation to helicopter flights: here.

SNH’s prompt and positive response is welcomed. Now we just have to monitor the situation and ensure they follow up on their commitment.

Natural England has yet to respond.

One year ago today saw the closure of the Scottish Government’s public consultation on increasing the SSPCA’s investigatory powers in relation to wildlife crime investigations, and particularly in relation to raptor persecution.

We’ve been told, repeatedly, by successive Environment Ministers that tackling raptor persecution is a Scottish Government “key priority”. It’s now been four and a half years since the notion of a public consultation on increasing the SSPCA’s powers was first mooted. Four and a half years of dragging the Government kicking and screaming towards what should be an obvious and easy next step in the fight against the raptor killers. And yet, four and a half years on, still we wait for a decision.

Here’s how the Scottish Government has handled this particular ‘key priority’ –

February 2011: Increased powers for the SSPCA was first suggested by former MSP Peter Peacock as an amendment during the WANE Bill debates. The then Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham rejected it as an amendment but suggested a public consultation was in order.

September 2011: Seven months later MSP Elaine Murray lodged a parliamentary motion that further powers for the SSPCA should be considered.

November 2011: Elaine Murray MSP formalised the question in a P&Q session and the next Environment Minister, Stewart Stevenson MSP, then promised that the consultation would happen ‘in the first half of 2012’.

September 2012: Nine months later and nothing had happened so we asked Paul Wheelhouse MSP, as the new Environment Minister, when the consultation would take place. The response, in October 2012, was:

“The consultation has been delayed by resource pressures but will be brought forward in the near future”.

July 2013: Ten months later and still no sign so we asked the Environment Minister (still Wheelhouse) again. In August 2013, this was the response:

“We regret that resource pressures did further delay the public consultation on the extension of SSPCA powers. However, I can confirm that the consultation document will be published later this year”.

September 2013: At a meeting of the PAW Executive Group, Wheelhouse said this:

“The consultation on new powers for the SSPCA will be published in October 2013“.

January 2014: In response to one of our blog readers who wrote to the Minister (still Wheelhouse) to ask why the consultation had not yet been published:

“We very much regret that resource pressures have caused further delays to the consultation to gain views on the extension of SSPCA powers. It will be published in the near future“.

31 March 2014: Public consultation launched.

1 September 2014: Consultation closed.

22 January 2015: Analysis of consultation responses published by Scottish Government. 233 responses (although 7,256 responses if online petition included – see here).

We were told a decision would come from the new Environment Minister, Dr Aileen Mcleod MSP, “in due course”.

1 September 2015: One year after the consultation closed  and we’re still waiting…

END

It’s interesting to compare the way the Government has handled the SSPCA consultation with their public consultation on Land Reform. Here’s the timeline for that one:

November 2014: First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announces her intention to introduce a Land Reform Bill to the Scottish Parliament in 2015.

2 December 2014: Public consultation on Land Reform launched.

10 February 2015: Consultation closed.

15 May 2015: Analysis of consultation responses published by Scottish Government. Over 1269 responses.

22 June 2015: Publication of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

So in a little over six months the Government was able to launch a public consultation, analyse the results and produce draft legislation in the form of the Land Reform Bill. That’s quite impressive, isn’t it?

Who still thinks that tackling raptor persecution is a ‘key priority’ for the Scottish Government?

Who would like to know when we might expect a decision on whether the SSPCA will receive increased investigatory powers? Emails to Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod: ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk