Dr Therese Coffey is the junior minister at Defra. Now that Gavin Gamble’s e-petition in favour of banning driven grouse shooting has passed 10,000 signatures Dr Coffey will need to sign off a government response. Gavin Gamble’s petition passed 12,000 signatures yesterday and is only just short of 12,500 now. It’s had a boost in the last few days and that might partly be because of the tardiness of the Defra response – people don’t like to be ignored.
In order that Dr Coffey does not make Defra look even more foolish than they do already I am providing a reading list for the minister to inform her response – which surely must be imminent.
Please sign this e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting and put Dr Coffey on the spot.
Dr Coffey, in the Westminster Hall debate on banning driven grouse shooting, you went out of your way to praise the so-called profession which is most responsible for wildlife crime against birds of prey. You said ‘The professionalism of keepers has been extensively referred to; I wish to add my contribution to that.’.
Gamekeepers make up more than two thirds of all the criminals convicted of offences related to raptors in the period 1990-2015, they’re certainly doing a very conspicuous job in ridding our uplands, our National Parks and AONBs of raptors through the illegal use of traps, poisons and shooting. It was striking that you chose to ally yourself so firmly with the occupation that is putting the existence of the Hen Harrier, and other protected wildlife, at risk. Did you for a moment forget that you are the biodiversity minister not the grouse shooting minister?
You now have the chance to correct the impression that you gave that you as the responsible minister, that Defra as the responsible department, and the government as a whole is on the side of the criminals and is happy for our wildlife to be sacrificed on the altar of a sport that entails shooting birds for fun.
Please sign this e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting and put Dr Coffey on the spot.
The government response should:
- be published within 2 weeks of Gavin Gamble’s e-petition reaching 10,000 signatures – FAIL
- announce that vicarious liability for wildlife crimes will be introduced in England because of the unacceptably high levels of wildlife crime
- announce that Defra will ask the RSPB to come forward with proposals for licensing of shooting estates within a month and that Defra will respond to them by Christmas
- acknowledge the level of concern about driven grouse shooting which led to 123,077 signatures being gained last year for an absolute ban on this hobby (I’m not expecting Dr Coffey to say anything nicer than that about a ban)
- confirm that Defra is looking at removal of farming subsidies from grouse moors in its post-Brexit agricultural strategy
- confirm that the evidence for wider environmental damage of heather burning has increased recently and that this is an issue that government will address and that this will require widespread changes to grouse moor management (burning and draining)
- mention where the government is with dealing with the RSPB complaint to the EU over unsustainable moorland management due to grouse shooting practices
- acknowledge that the plight of the Hen Harrier has not improved in two breeding seasons since the Defra Hen Harrier plan was launched and that the grouse shooting industry has not cleaned up its act and is on a last warning
- announce that the details of the 15-year Natural England Hen Harrier study will be published by Christmas 2017 in a government report with further recommendations for Hen Harrier conservation
- acknowledge that wildlife crime applies to many other protected species other than the Hen Harrier
- announce that the National Capital Committee has been asked to compile a report on ecosystem services and grouse moor management
- announce a review of the economic costs and benefits of intensive grouse moor management will be carried out by independent academics and published by Christmas 2018.
The government response should not:
- say that funding of the NWCU is a sufficient response to combatting bird of prey persecution in the uplands (because nobody who knows has ever suggested such a thing)
- say or suggest that grouse shooting provides a nett economic benefit to the nation (because there are no such figures)
- suggest that the current Hen Harrier Action Plan is remotely fit for purpose
- praise gamekeepers
- conflate benefits of all shooting (economic or environmental) with benefits of grouse shooting (because it makes the government department and/or its ministers look either stupid or biased)
Mark, if Defra look foolish, and I couldn’t agree more, than who is in charge of Defra? Do you see my point now? If Michael Gove is really the great hope for change, then why does such stupidity remain in Defra? Surely a genuine instrument for change would be sweeping all this stupidity away.
SteB – Defra look foolish because of the position they got into before Gove arrived. He is clearly extricating them from some of their previous foolishness. It remains to be seen whether that will extend to this subject.
Apparently very little!
Unfortunately stupid Defra policy is the general policy direction of the Conservative Party. It would be very hard for the Secretary for the Environment to change this even if they wanted.
The reason I am so cautious is because of how a tutor I had at uni explained how the planned legislation that eventually became the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act was subverted when the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher took power. How immediately the the landowners, especially those with titles immediately started lobbying the government to strip the proposed legislation of it’s powers. That originally this planned legislation was groundbreaking in that it proposed to give real teeth for protecting SSSIs, habitat and biodiversity. But this proposed legislation was profoundly changed to suit the interests of big landowners. Remember that during this period Derek Ratcliffe was Chief Scientist of the NCC and this proposed legislation drew heavily on his Nature Conservation Review.
In fact Defra has been foolish primarily because the Conservative Party is so in thrall to the landowning and farming lobby. Defra has become what it is because these lobbies are so powerful in the Conservative Party, and they get what they demand.
My fear is that if the body Gove proposes was implemented, that the lobbying of these vested interests are likely to ensure that it is toothless, and does their bidding.
The points I make aren’t party political, except in the sense that they are about the severe limitations of the Conservative Party when it comes to managing the environment and conservation. The landowning and farming lobby generally gets what it wants with a Conservative government.
Also, its not within his power to remove a junior minister. That’s Mrs May’s responsibility, and I suspect she’s not in the mood to lose any more ministers just now.
It’s not about removing ministers, it is about advising them on how to act, and changing Defra policy.
Mark, it seems your 24 part stream of consciousness hasn’t worked.
In case you missed it Mark, DEFRA has published a full and comprehensive response
It is also satisfying to note DEFRA have taken the opportunity to clarify the situation on a number of points including subsidies, which I hope you take on board.
James – yes, I’ve seen it and it remains inadequate, although it does represent a smidgeon of progress, but only a smidgeon. I’ll be blogging about it either on Sunday or Monday depending on what the weather is like over the weekend! Oh yes, and how riveting ‘Strictly’ is.