Driven Grouse Shooting

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I will address at the end of my speech. Leaving the EU may give us an opportunity to divert some money to better management of our moorland.

In Scotland alone, grouse shooting supports thousands of jobs that are worth £7 million a year in wages and contributes £32 million to the economy. It is estimated that it supports more than 4,000 full-time equivalent jobs in some of the poorest and most rural communities in the UK. Banning grouse shooting would be an epic gamble with our rural economy.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Petitions Committee is quite new, but I would have thought that someone opening a debate on a petition on behalf of that Committee ought at least to look at both sides of the argument and not present such a biased argument against the petition. More than 120,000 people signed the petition to ban grouse shooting, and they want a debate that sets out both sides of the argument. The hon. Gentleman is failing them miserably.

[Steve Double]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I think I have presented arguments on both sides, and I have not yet finished my speech, so perhaps she should wait until I have before jumping to a conclusion.

Local post offices, pubs, corner shops and primary schools would be at risk if grouse shooting were banned. Although it is correctly argued that many of the jobs linked to grouse shooting are seasonal, it takes place outside the main summer months and therefore fills a gap in local employment by employing people at a different time from other seasonal jobs.

It is clear that part of the opposition to grouse shooting is down to the perception that it is elitist. We have often heard the term “shooting for fun” used in a derogatory manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. Grouse shooting brings rural communities together in areas that struggle with social isolation and a lack of employment. Many of those who work on grouse shoots are students, school leavers or retirees looking to supplement their income. Those people are not rich toffs; they are ordinary people who rely on the additional income that the work brings them. Those who call for a ban have failed to present any credible alternative to that. No case has been made for where the tens of millions of pounds that are spent on the management of the land would come from. There seems to be a romantic view that if the land is left to nature, it will somehow become a natural paradise full of wildlife and people will pay to view it, yet no evidence has been presented to support that notion.

Many of those who support the movement against grouse shooting are also against all other countryside sports. If those people had their way, after grouse shooting was banned, other forms of shooting would be up for bans. I have even heard mention of fishing being on the radar for a ban one day. Many communities across rural Britain rely on grouse shooting. What do those who support a ban want grouse shooting to be replaced with? Who will employ the gamekeepers, the beaters and the land managers? Following the cessation of trips by tourists and visitors to those local communities, who will visit the pubs and shops and spend money in local businesses? The people who support a ban have no answers to those questions. For them, the end justifies the means. They see the countryside as a theme park or museum—something to be watched and visited. They do not realise that it needs constant management. The management of our countryside relies on viable, sustainable communities. People need to be able to live and make a living in the countryside.

It should be noted that, interestingly, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds does not support a ban. Instead, it advocates some form of licensing of grouse shooting. However, little detail has been presented about precisely how that would work or what value it would add, other than another layer of bureaucracy.

I do not support a ban on shooting—our current laws and regulations provide the right balance between protecting wildlife and the environment and supporting our rural communities—but that does not mean that nothing needs to be done. We should certainly take notice of some of the issues raised by the petition to ban and acknowledge the legitimate concerns of many of those who signed the petition. I believe that the Government can do more to address the underlying concerns that the petition expresses. Specifically, will the Minister address the concerns about flooding and the link to heather burning? What steps can be taken to address those concerns? What are the Government doing to enforce the law on protecting wildlife, especially birds of prey, and what more can be done to prosecute those who flout the law? What opportunities does she believe leaving the EU may bring for using agricultural subsidies to encourage land management, which would increase the protection and diversity of our moorlands?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Davies. Let us be clear what we are debating today. It is not whether people are entitled to shoot for the pot, whether shooting has a role in conservation or the wider issue of shooting for sport. We are not talking today about pheasant shooting, deer stalking or even walked-up grouse shooting. We are talking about driven grouse shooting because particular concerns are associated with it. It is rather disappointing that the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) sat through the evidence to the Petitions Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee last week and does not seem to have grasped that basic point about the petition.

The weight of scientific evidence is that driven grouse shooting damages habitats, pollutes our water, increases greenhouse gas emissions, increases flood risk and, all too often, involves the illegal persecution of birds of prey. As we have heard, shooting estates commonly burn heather and peat on the moors to increase the red grouse population. Reference has been made to the work by the University of Leeds on the effects of moorland burning on the eco-hydrology of river basins—the EMBER study—which concluded that burning reduces organic matter in the upper peat layers and depletes it of nutrients. Heather burning is intensifying as grouse shooting is intensifying.

Water tables were significantly deeper in burned catchments, indicating greater peat degradation and more carbon released into the atmosphere and water. This contributes to both climate change and to our water bills, as the water companies incur additional costs in removing the dissolved carbon. Treating a single drinking water catchment for the effect of peat burning may cost a six-figure sum each year.

The Energy and Climate Change Committee identified the climate threat in its report to Parliament last year and warned that the

“the majority of upland areas with carbon-rich peat soils, are in poor condition. The damaging practice of burning peat to increase grouse yields continues, including on internationally protected sites.”

Burning also reduces the uplands’ capacity to hold water, thereby increasing the flood risk downstream. In his paper calling for a radical rethink of flood defences, Dieter Helm, chair of the Natural Capital Committee, identified the burning of heather on grouse moors as a publicly subsidised practice that pays

“little or no attention to the flood risk dimensions.”

The Government’s national flood resilience review neglected this. The focus seemed to be on slowing down the flow instead of looking at what mismanagement in the uplands caused the flow to speed up in the first place. That is surely the wrong way to go about things.

It is not surprising that the highest number of signatures for the petition came from Calder Valley because it is communities such Hebden Bridge—which was devastated by the Boxing day floods, as I saw for myself when I visited with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch)—that pay the price for the mismanagement and abuse of the uplands.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for coming to see the devastation in my constituency in Calderdale in the aftermath of the Boxing day floods. I heard the points made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), for whom I have the utmost respect, but does my hon. Friend agree that we are not talking about banning grouse shooting in isolation, but that we must take the management of moorlands seriously as part of a package of measures if we are to have any chance of managing flood risk in future?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. She will know that Natural England initiated a prosecution, but proceedings were dropped in 2012 and the burning continued.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for coming up to the Calder Valley during the floods, which was a horrendous time for everyone. I just wonder whether she has had a look at the moors—indeed, any moors—to see what sort of restoration work is being done to restore them.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I went with the Uplands Alliance and the Moorland Association to an estate in Cumbria—we did not have time to go to Walshaw Moor; to be honest, our focus was on people in the flooded areas—so yes, I have visited moors with those organisations.

It is all the more galling that burning not only has costly consequences, but is often publicly subsidised under the guise of environmental stewardship. A freedom of information request to Natural England revealed that in 2012-13, £17.3 million of environmental stewardship funding was paid for land used for grouse shooting. The RSPB says that during the last 10 years £105 million has gone to grouse moors, supporting environmental damage to sites of special scientific interest and internationally protected special areas of conservation and special protection areas. In 2014, 30 estates received £4 million of taxpayers’ money—they included one owned by the late Duke of Westminster, who was worth £9 billion; I am sure that, despite some death taxes, the new duke is still pretty well off—that could be spent on public goods such as restoring wildlife habitats or flood alleviation.

Codes of practice on heather burning are simply not working. We need the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to respect the evidence and deliver a joined-up policy that does not involve the public subsidising practices that damage our environment. Nor can the Government continue to turn a blind eye to illegal practices, or meekly say, as they do in their response to the petition, that

“all those involved are encouraged to follow best practice.”

DEFRA has rightly identified raptor persecution as a national wildlife crime priority, but that is just used words. There is no action. Will the Minister tell us today what resources have been allocated to the national wildlife crime unit to prosecute those responsible and to prevent future persecution? We are told that a taskforce is developing a plan, but can the Minister tell us when that plan will be published, who will be consulted and when and how it will be actioned?

The decline of the hen harrier is the most obvious illustration of the failure to uphold the law on illegal persecution. The RSPB reports that four satellite-tagged hen harriers have disappeared so far this year. Their last known transmission was from areas on or close to grouse moors. According to the Government’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee, there should be 2,600 nesting pairs of hen harriers in the UK, including approximately 300 pairs in the English uplands. Instead, this year there are just three. The RSPB said in its evidence to the Petitions Committee

“a wealth of scientific evidence”

shows that is because of illegal persecution. The RSPB has withdrawn its support for the Government’s hen harrier action plan because it has

“patently shown itself unable to deliver”.

As has been said, the RSPB is not against shooting in general, but has made it clear that the

“the status quo is not an option and that voluntary approaches have failed.”

DEFRA’s initial response to the petition was incredibly complacent. It relied on the industry’s own claims about the benefits of driven grouse shooting and, critically, focused on when grouse shooting is

“carried out according to the law”,

ignoring the too many instances when it is not. The Government’s response cited the industry’s Public and Corporate Economic Consultants report on the economics of shooting sports, but a review by Sheffield Hallam University identified flawed methodology and found that many of the claims were not verifiable or supported by robust data.

Shooting is a diverse industry, and different forms of shooting have different costs and benefits associated with them. Only driven grouse shooting involves such disproportionate costs, illegal activity and environmental harm, which is why the petition focuses on driven grouse shooting.

I want to say something about the density of birds required to make a shooting estate profitable these days. Studies have shown that 60 birds per sq km is optimal, but owners now aim for 180 if not 200 birds per sq km. Owners make money according to how many birds are shot and the sole aim of many shooters now is to bag as many birds as possible. It is not about enjoying the countryside, communing with nature or even demonstrating any real skill, which might be required in walked-up shooting; it is just about blasting as many birds as possible out of the sky so that they can brag about it to their mates afterwards. Many find this so-called sport morally reprehensible, but even those who do not must accept that the driven grouse shooting lobby needs to put its house in order.

The Government could take a number of steps to reduce the damage associated with driven grouse shooting. They could put an end to widespread heather burning and investigate the use of public subsidies for environmentally damaging behaviour, ensuring that it ceases after Brexit. They could demonstrate the leadership we need to uphold the law and tackle illegal persecution through the national wildlife crime unit. They could look at the introduction of vicarious liability, which applies in Scotland, whereby estate owners are held responsible for the actions of their estate managers and gamekeepers. They could work with the RSPB to develop its proposal for a licensing system, although doubts have been expressed by others as to whether that would work. I do not have time to debate this today, but they could also ban the use of snares and lead ammunition, which as we know causes massive pollution to our water supplies as well as contaminating food. The Government must show the political will to uphold the law and protect our environment. If we do not see concerted action and swift progress soon, the only answer will be a ban.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Yes, there were unprecedented levels of rainfall and, yes, we are seeing climate change that is bringing increased rainfall. The Environment Agency’s mapping shows that we should expect to see more heavy downpours. However, importantly, the causation of some of the flooding—not all of it—is how the uplands are managed. I took time over the summer to visit the sources of some of the rivers that feed into my city, which also flooded. I observed the deep peat bogs and both the post-industrial land and the driven grouse moorland, recognising the differences in the land use, and also pulled on the evidence that we have much debated today.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I also visited my hon. Friend’s constituency during the Boxing day floods. During that period we had, I think, two Opposition day debates, at least two statements and an urgent question, and all the Government Front Benchers acknowledged that upland management was an issue and that we had to look at the role played by tree planting and other forms of upland management when considering flood protection. I am surprised, therefore, that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) does not acknowledge that.

[Rachael Maskell]

That is very much what the former Minister said in every single contribution we heard about the need to use upland management to deal with flooding. We continue, therefore, to press the issue, and are very disappointed that in the national resilience plan, the decision about how to address the catchment areas was deferred.

A number of interventions are clearly needed. We have heard about “slow the flow” schemes and hydro-retention schemes, but we also need to consider upland management. We are not looking just at the flow of the water, but at the soil and vegetation, and at how we hold the water in the uplands. The research by the University of Leeds on the effects of moorland burning on the ecohydrology of river basins—the EMBER research, as it has come to be known—is one of the most comprehensive studies out there. It shows that where there is heavy rainfall, there is more water flowing more rapidly downhill, contributing to flooding. The research also states that the burning of heather has an impact on hydrology, peat chemistry and physical properties, water chemistry and river ecology. As we know, the University of York is also carrying out a study, which is even more comprehensive and sustained, and we must see the completion of that evidence base as well.