Did you write to your Labour MP? Firm Briefing 18

Around 120 of you have told me that you have written to your Labour MPs on the subject of the debate on driven grouse shooting that will happen on a Monday afternoon after the 18 October (date tbc).

So far, some of you have had responses from c22 Labour MPs but another 68 or so have not yet responded.  Now that the Labour Party leadership election has happened, and the party conference is taking place, it is time for you to get back to your Labour MP and get them to be a bit more active on this issue.

The standard Labour response isn’t bad – but it also isn’t very specific about what line Labour will take.  It seems very likely to me that Labour will want to nudge the government towards doing more on this subject but won’t regard it as a very big issue for them. If pushed, Labour might opt for licensing of shooting estates (even though it won’t work).

 

Here is what I would write – there are two versions depending on whether you have had a response from your MP yet.

 

1. Dear [MP’s name]

Thank you for your response on driven grouse shooting – the date for the Westminster Hall debate is not yet set but the Petitions Committee is holding an evidence session on 18 October so the debate will be on  a Monday afternoon some time after that.

I was pleased to see the following phrase in your reply to me ‘…at the 2015 general election, I stood on a manifesto which included a commitment to deal with the wildlife crime associated with shooting. I am concerned that birds of prey are intensively persecuted, and that iconic birds such as the hen harrier are in danger of being lost as a breeding species in England. I believe that more must be done to protect these birds and to reduce the suffering of animals on shooting estates.‘.

I’d like to know what the Labour Party actually intends to do on this issue and what it will say in the debate.

 

 

OR

2. Dear [MP’s name]

I wrote to you recently on the subject of driven grouse shooting and have not yet had a reply. I have however seen that other Labour MPs are sending out a sensible but slightly vague response on this subject which includes this passage, ‘…at the 2015 general election, I stood on a manifesto which included a commitment to deal with the wildlife crime associated with shooting. I am concerned that birds of prey are intensively persecuted, and that iconic birds such as the hen harrier are in danger of being lost as a breeding species in England. I believe that more must be done to protect these birds and to reduce the suffering of animals on shooting estates.‘.

I’d like to know what the Labour Party actually intends to do on this issue and what it will say in the debate in Westminster Hall.

AND THEN

Protected birds of prey are killed systematically and routinely by grouse shooting interests because they eat Red Grouse that can be shot for money on ‘sporting’ estates. A day’s Red Grouse shooting is likely to cost in the region of several thousand pounds per person and will involve the killing of scores of, often hundreds of, wild Red Grouse. This is big money.

Birds of prey do eat Red Grouse, and have done for thousands of years, but they don’t pay for the privilege. Hen Harriers, Peregrine Falcons, Golden Eagles (in Scotland), Goshawks and other species include Red Grouse in their diet and although they have been protected since 1954 (Protection of Birds Act) they are systematically killed by grouse shooting interests. Birds of prey are trapped, poisoned and shot – all illegal.

The grouse shooting industry argues that a bit of illegality remains but that it is ‘a few bad apples’. This contrasts with the facts which show that birds of prey have greatly reduced populations. For example, there are c650 pairs of breeding Hen Harrier in the UK and there should be, according to statutory sector science, around 2600 pairs.  In England there should be c330 pairs of the same species, but this year there were just 3 (yes, three!).  Similar impacts have been measured by scientists looking at Peregrine Falcons and Golden Eagles (in Scotland).  Whole counties lack any pairs of some protected species that should be relatively common, and this situation is getting worse not better.  Wildlife losses on this scale are not the work of a few bad apples – they are the result of systematic, routine and widespread wildlife crime.

Because this crime occurs in remote upland areas, on shooting estates and is probably largely carried out by employees of those estates, it is very difficult to detect the crimes as they happen and even more difficult to identify the culprits with enough certainty to bring many successful legal cases. However,the science that has been done, the court cases that have been successful and the increasing evidence from satellite-tagged birds indicates that intensively managed grouse moors are where birds of prey, fully protected by law, are likely to die.

So we are dealing with one tightly defined sector of society which is responsible for wildlife crimes which are having major impacts on wildlife populations and which are difficult to detect. Defra recognised the problem a few years ago when setting up a stakeholder group to look at the issue of illegal persecution of Hen Harriers but the plan it came up with was inadequate and the RSPB, which had been an uneasy partner in the plan, withdrew its support this summer because of a lack of sign of goodwill by the grouse shooters.

There are four options on the table, and I would like to know which the Labour Party will support so please forward this letter to the Shadow Sec of State for Defra, at the time of writing Rachael Maskell,  for an answer. the four options are:

1. Do nothing – this appears to be the government’s position and I would expect the opposition to take Defra apart on this subject. The Conservatives claim to be th party of law and order after all.
2. Introduce vicarious liability for wildlife crime – this exists in Scotland but was ruled out for England by the former minister Richard Benyon MP who is a grouse moor owner himself.  Vicarious liability for such crimes would increase the deterrent impact of the few cases that come to court because the landowner could be vicariously liable for offences carried out by his or her staff.  Grouse moor owners in the north of England include prominent people such as the Duke of Westminster, Earl Peel,  the co-founder of Carphone Warehouse David Ross and property developer Mark ‘Herbie’ Hancock and whereas I would not suggest that any of these would be involved in illegal activities the prospect of ending up in court and with a conviction because of the activities of a gamekeeper might well sharpen up any management chain.
3. Licensing of all shooting estates has been suggested by the RSPB although the details are pretty obscure. Licensing could cover all aspects of moorland management and raise standards but it is not likely to improve compliance with the existing law unless much greater resources are given to enforcement and detection. The best thing to be said about licensing is that it would fail and lead the way to…
4. Banning grouse shooting.  A ban on driven grouse shooting is the most effective way greatly to reduce wildlife crime against birds of prey in England’s National Parks (eg north York Moors, Yorkshire Dales, Peal District, Northumberland National Park) and upland Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (eg Forest of Bowland, North Pennines). There are many other problems with intensive moorland management for grouse shooting (increased flood risk, increased water treatment costs, increase greenhouse gas emissions) which would also be solved by a ban.

So, the question is ‘Which option does Labour prefer in order to meet your manifesto commitment to deal with the wildlife crime associated with shooting?’ and how will Labour MPs take this forward in the Westminster Hall debate on this subject in the next few weeks? I’d also like to hear your own view, as my MP. And I would be interested to see how Labour takes this matter forward in the next election manifesto.

Yours sincerely,

[registration_form]