Last Monday (30 June) saw MPs debate a ban on grouse shooting. The sun mercilessly beat down while members from across the political spectrum gathered, perspiration visible on the foreheads of some. Doubtless many of them wondered, as I did, if this was really the most pressing issue facing the country.
Yet here they were debating this issue, for the third time in recent years.
Neither the government nor MPs were responsible for this debate — it came in response to a petition, organised by Chris Packham and his anti-shooting group Wild Justice. The petition, after being plugged for months on end, reached the 100,000 signatory threshold which forces a parliamentary debate.
Packham and Wild Justice also organised the previous two such debates on a grouse shooting ban, which took place in 2021 and 2016. Both times, the group’s ambitions were dashed against the rocks of the arguments in favour of grouse shooting — its manifold economic, environmental and social benefits.
Grouse shooting contributes more than £23m in gross value added to the Scottish economy
But that was under the previous Conservative government. Wild Justice themselves stated that they had “high hopes” for “more radical progress” under the new Labour government. They filmed themselves outside Parliament with excited smiles and full of vim. Third time lucky?
Unfortunately for them, their hopes were about to be annihilated — just hours later, MPs would be lining up to shoot them down.
The onslaught began straight away, as John Lamont, the Petitions Committee member who moved the debate, opened fire.
John Lamont (Con, Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) presented a fair overview of the arguments on both sides, but the arguments for a ban could not stand up to the reality of the situation. He unloaded both barrels, releasing a barrage of facts that the Countryside Alliance and similar organisations had equipped him with, pointing to the vast economic and environmental benefits of grouse shooting and its associated moorland management.
Discussing his previous meetings with anti-shooting groups, he stated that activists in favour of ban, who claim that the industry has small economic value, “should tell that to those managing the land who have a job because of the industry … to those running the hotels and bed and breakfasts that are sustained by it … to those who run the small shops and stores that get by because of it … ” and, most importantly, “to the UK Treasury, which receives the tax revenues generated by the workers who pay income tax and by the businesses that pay myriad taxes because of the industry”.
The facts do not lie — grouse shooting contributes more than £23m in gross value added to the Scottish economy, while the wider shooting sector is worth £3.3bn to the UK economy every year. British grouse moors alone support around 3,000 full-time equivalent jobs — not to mention the huge number of jobs that rely on the industry in some other way.
Next up it was one of the big guns — former PM Rishi Sunak (Con, Richmond and Northallerton). With statesman-like precision, he demonstrated the invaluable contribution of grouse shooting to both the rural economy and the rural landscape.
He said that advocates of a ban are completely mistaken about who would suffer as a result. The victims wouldn’t be “rich men in plus fours”, but rather “ordinary working people: the farmer’s wife who goes beating at the weekend so that her family can make ends meet; or the local publican welcoming shooting parties with cold ales and warm pies”.
Mr Sunak rightly criticised the tendency among some conservationists to act as though farmers and gamekeepers are trespassers on Britain’s landscape, for without their handiwork repairing dry stone walls and their livestock keeping our fields lush, Britain’s rural beauty would soon fade.
The environmental advantages are clear. Grouse moor owners in England spend £52.5m every year on moorland management. Grouse moors account for up to 1.8m hectares of the UK uplands, which contain up to 75 per cent of the world’s remaining heather moorland.
Rare birds such as golden plover, lapwing and curlew call these areas their home. They are vastly more abundant on managed grouse moors than elsewhere in the uplands — thanks to the predator control of foxes, corvids and mustelids that takes place on managed moorland.
Packham, who was watching proceedings, had his head in his hands, but things only got worse for him as Labour’s Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) and Conservative Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) scored a left-and-right in defence of shooting.
Mr Rushworth, who has never been shooting, opposed the motion, speaking about environmental and social benefits derived from grouse shooting in his constituency.
Mr Hollinrake blasted advocates of a ban, drawing particular attention to the important work moorland management does in preventing horrific wildfires.
From there, successive MPs from different parties demolished the anti-shooting argument, as Sarah Dyke (Lib Dem, Glastonbury and Somerton), Robbie Moore (Con, Keighley and Ilkley), Greg Smith (Con, Mid Buckinghamshire), Angus MacDonald (Lib Dem, Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire), David Simmonds (Con, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) and Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford) all spoke in defence of grouse shooting and the moorland management that comes with it.
Despite all the online furore and campaigning from Packham and his ilk, only one MP turned up to speak against grouse shooting. Olivia Blake (Lab, Sheffield Hallam) called it a “relic of a bygone age” and advocated for “community-led rewilding projects”. When questioned on how the landscapes would be managed and biodiversity preserved without private investment, her response only contained a vague mention of “carbon credits”. Suffice to say she did not win over many in the room.
It was by no means surprising, then, that Agriculture Minister Daniel Zeichner responded on the government’s behalf to state that the Government had no plans to ban grouse shooting.
For many who have been concerned at the current government’s approach to the countryside, the debate represented a welcome example of logic and common sense.
MPs who have never been shooting, from across the political spectrum, and from both suburban and rural seats — lined up loaded with the facts, to dispatch Wild Justice’s petition. Packham and his fellow organisers left, tail between their legs. The single MP they could muster to speak on their behalf had proved no match for the indisputable evidence of the benefits of grouse shooting.
The debate represents a fantastic win for the countryside, but we should note that it is but one of many threats currently facing the rural way of life. We can only hope that in the battles to come, we will see a similar cross-section of MPs come to the countryside’s defence.
