Open Season for Woodcock

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. It is important for me to start with some constituency context. I represent a constituency in north-west London, which is probably best known for being a suburban area. However, we have more than 80 farms. We have a number of important habitats, in particular for bird life, in Mad Bess woods and Ruislip woods. We have a significant number of members of both the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the RSPB. We are also home to the well-known Holland & Holland shooting ground, which is used regularly by people who enjoy clay pigeon shooting and who perhaps go on to practise shooting birds.

I have had the opportunity to enjoy both the hospitality of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation, and I have read the helpful and regular briefings that have come from the RSPB and other interested organisations over the years. It seems that this is an important debate that goes to the heart of many of the issues that Parliament, and us as Members of Parliament, need to consider. We are looking at not just the issues faced by the woodcock population in the United Kingdom, but the many other issues that affect the relationship between humans and animals in so many different ways.

I was a member of the RSPB’s Young Ornithologist Club many years ago. I want to place on the record my thanks in particular to the noble Lord Randall, who has a huge interest in bird life and has been an influence on my thinking on the matter. When we look at the various briefings that Members of Parliament have received on the issue, and at the views set out in the petition itself, it seems there are a number of issues we need to consider.

It is clear that climate change is having a significant impact on the breeding habitats of wild birds around the world, especially migratory species. We need to consider what responsibilities our Government have. We need to consider not just what we can do here in the United Kingdom, but what influence we can bring to bear in international forums to try to secure and improve the provision of those habitats, so that both migratory birds and birds domestic to the United Kingdom can thrive.

I was very struck by the briefing from the Countryside Alliance, which set out a great deal of the history, much of which has already been mentioned by other Members. It highlighted that the habitats that are so important for our woodcock population in the United Kingdom largely derive from environments that were created specifically, over the years, by those wishing to create an environment suitable for pheasant shooting.

That has been a consistent issue in the debates relating to any proposed restrictions on the shooting of animals in the United Kingdom. Personally, I have never shot a living creature for fun, but I am quite happy to eat game that has been shot. However, a consistent theme that has arisen through all those debates is that there is a balance between those who manage environments that are crucial for species—but are doing so because of farming, or, in this case, shooting for pleasure—and the need to restrict behaviour that goes against the law or has a long-term negative impact on the wellbeing of those species.

What I found striking in that Countryside Alliance briefing was the evidence that the shooting of animals—with the income derived from that, and the management of those habitats as a result—has been of long-term benefit to the species that we are talking about today, and those that we have debated in previous discussions, in response to previous petitions and wider-spread public concern. So, while I completely understand the views of a good many of my constituents, who have been most persuaded by the views of the RSPB, it seems that we need, at a governmental level, to balance that with the overall environmental and wildlife impact that any further restrictions will introduce.

As a consequence, it seems to me that, when we do balance those two things—I very much agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that the evidence so far shows that the voluntary actions that have been undertaken have been beneficial—that is an appropriate first step for those of us who have concerns about ensuring that the issue is addressed in the long term.

This is a matter that Government clearly need to keep an eye on. However, while the Government might respond with further regulation, some of which may well be appropriate, the work done with different organisations on moving from lead to steel shot shows how co-operation can produce a much better outcome in animal and environmental welfare than the alternative of seeking regulation that perhaps does not fully consider the impact, particularly on the incomes that support that wildlife and habitat management. We must therefore maintain that sense of co-operation.

That being the case, I am not convinced by the evidence that has been presented that further regulation is justified at this time, nor am I convinced that it would be beneficial for the animal species—woodcock and other creatures—that are part of this overall both economic and wildlife ecosystem. Therefore, I very much agree that, as the hon. Member for Strangford outlined, we should continue to monitor this, but that the status quo represents an appropriate balance between the interests of birds, of the economy, and of people who wish to enjoy shooting as part of their day-to-day lives in our countryside.