Packham’s Petition Backfires at Driven Grouse Shooting Debate

In case there was any doubt, yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on driven grouse shooting, made it crystal clear that the government has no plans to ban the sport, and the general mood in Parliament is not in favour of changing the rules anytime soon.

Nine MPs spoke up for the benefits of grouse moors and the rural communities that depend on them, representing a coalition of support across the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, and DUP parties. Meanwhile, Wild Justice - the campaign group set up by Chris Packham and Ruth Tingay - managed to drum up exactly one urban MP to trot out RSPB figures and the usual lines about wildlife crime.

John Lamont opened proceedings with both barrels, taking aim at claims in the petition that shooting’s contribution to the local economy was “economically insignificant.” 

“They 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 they should tell that to the United Kingdom Treasury, which receives the tax revenues … because of the industry,” came the assertive response from the Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk MP, pointing out that grouse shooting contributes £23 million per year to the Scottish economy and shooting more generally equates to £3.3 billion of the UK’s GDP.

Kevin Hollinrake and Rishi Sunak accused Wild Justice and the petitioners of not understanding the vital economic and environmental role played by driven grouse shooting.

A rousing intervention by Rishi Sunak echoed Lamont’s comments about the economic significance of grouse shooting for rural communities, highlighting the 2,500 direct jobs and tens of millions of pounds paid out in wages. 

The former Prime Minister went on to dispel misconceptions about the real victims of any ban on grouse shooting. “Advocates of a ban often think that the only people who will suffer are rich men in plus fours with port-faced complexions…nothing could be further from the truth. The real victims of any ban would not be caricatures, but ordinary working people: the farmer’s wife who goes beating at the weekend so that her family can make ends meet; the young man able to earn a living.”

By the 8th speech in favour of driven grouse shooting - this time a compelling account of increased hen harrier populations as a product of targeted conservation partnerships, predator control and habitat stewardship by Greg Smith - Packham could not hide his emotions. 

The committee room cameras pan to Packham in the audience, head in his hands, and dismay turns to exasperation as it dawns on him: if grouse shooting is going anywhere, it won’t be under this government. 

Seated in the gallery, Packham could not contain his emotions as the support for driven grouse shooting continued to roll in.

Labour’s Olivia Blake, the lone voice for the anti-shooting lobby, warned dramatically about “environmental damage, ethical failures and economic myths”, calling them indefensible in the 21st century. Predictably, though, Blake struggled to find much company in the grand committee room. 

The Sheffield Hallam MP cited the ‘great Bob Berzins’ as one of her experts. As C4PMC readers will be aware, though, Berzins is more known for his incoherent ramblings than his astute observations. 

Olivia Blake was sent out to bat alone on behalf of the Wild Justice petition.

Berzins has been quiet on the issue of grouse shooting for quite some time. Perhaps as a result of his last public lecture, where he was found to have lied every other minute, or the revelation that his beloved fell running club is known to disturb hen harrier nests in the Peak District. 

Blake was unable to answer Kevin Hollinrake’s questions about who, other than private landowners, would manage and pay for biodiversity in the uplands, desperately proffering the RSPB as an alternative. Though we only have to look at the ‘avian dessert’ that is Lake Vyrnwy Nature Reserve to see how that would turn out. 

Sarah Dyke and Angus McDonald made up the Lib-Dem team, which stressed the importance of protecting peatlands, noting that the UK stores 3,200 million tonnes of CO2 in peat. McDonald also urged the Chair not to “let urban MPs once more hammer us rural people without knowing the awful consequences.”

Secretary of State for the Environment Daniel Zeichner reiterated the government's support for driven grouse shooting.

Towards the end of the debate, the DUP lined up alongside the Tories, the Lib-Dems and Labour, as Jim Shannon tied the arguments up eloquently: “To ban grouse shooting would be to impoverish our uplands environmentally, economically and socially.”

Responding to the 9 vs 1 pile-on debate, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Daniel Zeichner, reiterated that the government “fully appreciates” the economic value of driven grouse shooting. 

Once again, Wild Justice has provided the shooting community with the best possible platform to extol the virtues of driven grouse shooting and its support for upland communities. The lesson for the Labour Party is plain as day: if you want to support the upland economy, protect wildlife, and maintain any hope of keeping rural seats at the next election, don’t listen to Chris Packham.