← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Driven Grouse Shooting
30 June 2025
Lead MP
John Lamont
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Con
Responding Minister
Rishi Sunak
Tags
Taxation
Word Count: 17035
Other Contributors: 15
At a Glance
John Lamont raised concerns about driven grouse shooting in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
I question the position of the petitioners and will probe their conclusions on the economic, environmental and ethical benefits of grouse shooting.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
The petition received 104,000 signatures reflecting the strength of feeling against driven grouse shooting. The petition claims that it is bad for people, the environment and wildlife and economically insignificant compared to other potential uses of uplands.
Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire
Describes the social and economic importance of grouse shooting in remote Scotland. Emphasizes that gamekeepers play a vital role in wildlife conservation and rural community life.
Daniel Zeichner
Lab
Cambridge
Acknowledges the concerns raised but emphasizes that the government is considering proposals to protect peatlands and wildlife while balancing economic benefits.
West Dorset
Expressed concerns about the poisoning of reintroduced sea eagles and suggested that stronger prosecution could improve public perception of grouse shooting.
Greg Smith
Con
Mid Buckinghamshire
Mr. Smith supports grouse shooting as a traditional sporting pursuit that delivers measurable environmental, social and economic value to the countryside. Responded to criticisms by highlighting that populations of hen harriers have increased due to conservation efforts on managed grouse moors, arguing against a blanket ban on grouse shooting.
Jamie Stone
LD
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Highlights the importance of rural jobs provided by shooting sports and the training offered at local universities for conservation work.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Supports grouse shooting due to its economic benefits and conservation role. Declares membership in BASC, Countryside Alliance Ireland, Sport Ireland, and Ulster Farmers Union.
Joe Morris
Lab
Hexham
Asked the Minister to explore introducing vicarious responsibility for landowners across the UK to properly prosecute wildlife crimes.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Opposes the petition's claims, stating that driven grouse shooting is economically significant for his constituency of Thirsk and Malton. He argues against suggestions that it harms the environment or wildlife. Supported Robbie Moore’s concerns about the impact of changing the definition of deep peat on moorland management. Questions the advice given by Natural England, suggesting it could make his constituency unviable for grouse shooting.
Spoke powerfully in favour of grouse shooting and shared personal experiences.
Her constituency presents a unique challenge due to its proximity to the moors, and she understands the importance of grouse shooting for her community's environment and biodiversity.
Olivia Blake
Lab
Sheffield Hallam
Argues that grouse shooting is harmful and requires more regulation due to environmental destruction, illegal persecution of birds of prey, and commercial interests. Mentions the petition signed by 635 constituents. Asked about which Government introduced a partial ban on peatland burning.
Rishi Sunak
Con
Richmond and Northallerton
Highlights that grouse shooting is fundamental to hard-working people in rural constituencies. Discusses the economic significance of the industry, noting 2,500 direct jobs and tens of millions of pounds paid out in wages annually. Argues against the notion that the only victims would be caricatured rich men.
Robbie Moore
Con
Keighley and Ilkley
Mr. Moore acknowledges the importance of managing grouse moorland for economic, social, environmental, and ecological reasons but stresses that banning grouse shooting would have significant ramifications. Stressed the ecological benefits of grouse shooting and highlighted the economic contributions, including job creation and investment. Expressed concern over the proposed change in the definition of deep peat and urged the Government to review Natural England's direction. The MP emphasises that moorland management benefits environmental outcomes, including bird species like the hen harrier, and calls for private investment to continue these practices.
Sam Rushworth
Lab
Bishop Auckland
Emphasised the importance of jobs and livelihoods in his constituency, advocating for conservation efforts that support local communities. The MP acknowledges the economic benefits of grouse shooting but expresses concern about wildlife protection and requests a timetable for banning trail hunting.
Sarah Dyke
LD
Glastonbury and Somerton
Acknowledged the cultural significance and economic benefits of grouse shooting while stressing the need for action against illegal activities such as raptor persecution.
Government Response
Rishi Sunak
Government Response
Stressed zero tolerance towards raptor persecution, highlighted the necessity of grouse shooting for conservation, and defended the sector's regulated nature against calls for a blanket ban. The Government has no plans to ban grouse shooting, although options are under review due to strong opinions on both sides of the debate. The minister acknowledges valid concerns regarding wildlife protection and supports penalties for raptor persecution, noting that only two people have been prosecuted for hen harrier offences in Scotland. Acknowledges concerns about wildlife and habitats but assures that no plans exist to ban driven grouse shooting. Emphasizes the importance of protecting wildlife while respecting legal frameworks.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.