Written evidence from the four witnesses who gave oral evidence.

Mark 19 Comments

799px-Houses.of_.parliament.overall.arp_My written evidence

RSPB’s written evidence

Countryside Alliance’s written evidence

Moorland Association’s written evidence

 

The inquiry received hundreds of statements of written evidence which will be published over the next few days. It’s a big job for the committee clerks to read it all, exclude any evidence that might be libellous or inappropriate for some other reason, and then put it all on the internet.

I look forward to reading all of it soon! I’ve seen some evidence submitted by readers of this blog and what I have seen is fantastic stuff.

If you have written to your MP (and have let me know!) then you will get an email from me on Friday with some suggestiosn as to how you might like to contact your MP ahead of the debate on 31 October.

[registration_form]

19 Replies to “Written evidence from the four witnesses who gave oral evidence.”

  1. Mark, please email me with your MP briefing when available, and I will forward to my MP Alison McGovern, Wirral South. She has told me she will attend the debate if it fits in with her schedule. Not a firm commitment, but not a No!

  2. Interesting that both CA and MA make much of the fact that grouse shooting is already subject to regulation. Whilst true that spectacularly misses the point that the existing regulation is not remotely effective.

  3. Hi Mark.

    Thank you for posting documents (although as I type I note that there is a single “Dislike”, and I am wondering what is not to like about a post linking to documents giving different points of view).

    Just to clear something up for me please. Moorland Association mentions Driven grouse shooting, but the D word appears to be absent from Countryside Alliance evidence. Have I missed the word in that document? Are there any moors that are managed for non-driven grouse shooting? Am I being pedantic?

    Tim.

    1. Tim – there are moors, largely ones that for reasons of weather, altitude, vegetation etc cannot produce the ridiculously high densities of Red Grouse, that have the traditional form of shooting, walked up shooting.

  4. I have written to my MP twice and not yet had a reply. (John Mann- Bassetlaw) Has anyone else had the same result with this MP?

  5. To me Marks Summary point 5 is the nail in the coffin for driven grouse shooting.

    5. Driven grouse shooting has lost any right to be regarded as a legitimate activity because it depends on, is underpinned by, and profits from, crime.

  6. I will be writing again to my Labour MP and I also drafted in a friend a while ago to hammer her Tory MP, who I don’t think even responded. So I will need some advice on replies for both parties!

    BTW I listened to the entire thing at work yesterday and thought you did an excellent job. Though I was fizzing when the whole thing was finished – I can’t believe they expected you to have provided an extensive report into grouse moore alternatives, but when the other side related a “cute” little anecdote about a mum and dad having their first blood sport-funded baby in a pretty little hamlet, no one batted an eyelid.

    1. I must have misunderstood arrangements – I thought it was on the BBC Parliament channel and so recorded that, but it wasn’t. Where was it available as a broadcast? I might still be be to download it.

      Thanks.

  7. The Countryside Alliance and Moorland Association should be embarrassed. Its not often you get to hear such drivel from supposed professional bodies. There cases have an almost total lack of any scientific data.

  8. Just watched the video.

    They went so easy on the CA and Moorland Assoc!

    The head of the CA being on the committee, expecting Mark to have done DEFRA’s job for them and doing a full economic risk assessment. What a farse.

    We all know how this is going to end this time round…where do we go from here…how do we take this fight forward?

    Do we need to do more to expose the government and DEFRA for being so partial?

    1. Should also add to that that you were briliant Mark, despite them going very hard on you.

      The comment from the chair “I’ll decide what’s point scoring and what isn’t” was just awful. You weren’t point scoring, you just mentioned what the RSPB neglected to mentioned!

      1. Agreed. I thought that was a low point and was, in my view, indicative of the chair’s hostility.

      2. Indeed. But what some other commentators have missed is that Parliamentary committee chairs almost always feel the need to make this kind of early intervention. Not only (like many chairs everywhere) to exert their own authority but also in some odd way that of Parliament. They are usually also seeking to climb their own Westminster greasy pole; she probably wants to be Deputy Assistant Speaker or something.

  9. A gamekeeper apparently asserts you can’t sneeze without a licence….this may well be so… so where are the prosecutions and other sanctions for sneezing without a licence? Same place as the ones for gas guns, building tracks without permission, setting pole traps, shooting birds of prey, hunkering down in the heather with a gun and strategically placed decoy?

  10. Mark, I have already sent my second letter to Labour MP Gisela Stuart, who, in the first instance sent me the Dr Coffey standard response. I have said I was disappointed that none of the issues I raised were even remotely tackled. I asked if she will represent my views/concerns at ‘the’ debate…awaiting response.
    You did a stirling job yesterday….and I learnt shed-loads ! Thank you.

Comments are closed.