Not-so Natural England

Our colleagues at the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) won a significant victory over the government’s agency, Natural England, in the High Court last week.

The challenge was relatively narrow, relating to the licensing of the release of gamebirds on protected areas, but the principle was not. This was not a case that ruled on a technical legal dispute. The judgment went to the heart of how government treats the countryside and whether those exercising power over rural people understand that their job is to apply the law, not invent it.

The ruling was fairly devastating for Natural England. Mr Justice Ritchie found that the regulator had acted unlawfully by interpreting the law governing gamebird releases in a way that Parliament never intended. He concluded that Natural England misunderstood its powers and that the conditions it imposed were “irrational”.

BASC turned to Judicial Review as a last resort, having spent months trying to persuade Natural England to reconsider its position. It engaged with senior officials, explained why the licensing conditions were unlawful and sought a practical solution. Those efforts were ignored by Natural England, but BASC’s interpretation was upheld by the courts.

The judgment obviously matters to shoots affected by these licences, but its impact goes much wider. It is a wake-up call to regulators who too often seem to believe that they are accountable to no one.

They increasingly behave like campaigning organisations trying to steer policy rather than deliver it

Whether you are a farmer trying to produce food, a gamekeeper managing habitat, a commoner grazing livestock, or a landowner maintaining moorland, there is a growing sense that many public bodies are not impartial. They increasingly behave like campaigning organisations trying to steer policy rather than deliver it. Natural England has become the clearest example of that culture and has increasingly appeared less interested in working with the people who manage the countryside than in restricting what they do. The assumption seems to be that productive land management is inherently harmful and that regulation should be used to limit it wherever possible.

This has the potential to restrict economic growth and productivity in areas that need them most. The reality is that game shooting supports thousands of rural jobs, funds habitat creation on a huge scale, and delivers conservation that benefits species far beyond pheasants and partridges. Meanwhile, farmers produce food while managing landscapes that millions enjoy, and moorland managers reduce fuel loads to help prevent the catastrophic wildfires that have become an increasingly familiar feature of our summers. These are not activities that stand in the way of nature recovery; the opposite is true, as in many cases they are the reason wildlife continues to thrive. Yet these are all areas where government increasingly treats people with suspicion rather than respect.

That attitude has become increasingly familiar over the past two years as Labour’s relationship with the countryside has deteriorated almost from the moment it entered government. The future of family farms has been threatened by changes to inheritance tax. Confidence in environmental schemes has been undermined. Rural businesses have been left wondering whether anyone in Westminster understands how they operate. The cumulative effect has been a profound loss of trust between government and the people who live and work in the countryside.

Ministers, of course, do not make every licensing decision, but they set the tone and cannot deny responsibility for the agencies that work for them, which is why this judgment matters to ministers as much as it does to Natural England. What also matters is how the government reacts, especially as Natural England’s immediate response was not to reconsider its approach, but to appeal the judgment immediately. This seems an extraordinary waste of taxpayers’ money when the judgment only really reminded Natural England of something that should never have been forgotten in the first place: that it cannot simply reinterpret legislation to produce the outcome it might prefer. Parliament makes laws and agencies regulate them. That principle should not be controversial, but it has already taken a costly judicial review — which will now apparently be appealed at even more expense — to confirm it.

The Alliance has called for the new Prime Minister and his refreshed government to reset their relationship with the countryside. They have the opportunity to draw a line under the failures of the past two years and to rebuild a relationship with rural Britain based on partnership rather than confrontation. If that reset is to mean anything, however, it must extend beyond Whitehall to the agencies and quangos that shape so much of life in the countryside. Natural England, the Environment Agency and others perform vital functions, but they exist to deliver the will of Parliament, not to pursue agendas of their own.