The threat of Shoot licensing was loosed at the shooting community earlier this year in the government’s Land Use Framework. With both the anti-shooting agenda and rural organisations on a war footing, the government has now made its next move and launched a Call for Evidence into gamebird shooting, release and rearing. Defra has been at pains to stress that no policy decisions have yet been made, but it is hard not to see this as a portent for shoot licensing. There is some confusion around what a Call for Evidence actually is, and it is perhaps timely to do a red tape deep dive. In England the legislative process is rather rigid; let's look at what steps would have to be taken for a shoot licensing regime to be introduced.
The Call for Evidence is reasonably self-explanatory. The government cannot base policy on a whim; it must first ensure it has sufficient information to hand. This Call is for factual evidence and not sentiment or opinion, it requires careful response by those who have genuine knowledge, experience and data. For the sake of the future of shooting, we must ensure that responses are carefully thought out, so as to not make a rod for our own back. After 1 November, when the Call for Evidence closes, Defra - or whoever they hire, will have to analyse all the responses and draw conclusions.
With this analysis, the government will then decide its proposed policy. It can decide to take no further action, or it can decide to legislate. As this point it may choose to license the release of pheasant, partridge and mallard and the shooting of all gamebirds. If this is the case, it must formalise its proposals and conduct a public consultation, which usually lasts 12 weeks. The consultation would seek opinions on the policy and investigate the impacts that it may have. This would be the moment for mass mobilisation of everyone in and around the shooting sector.
Once a consultation concludes, its responses must then be analysed, which can take months, and at last, the government’s final policy will be decided. At this point, legislative vehicles to implement the proposals would have to be identified and prepared.
In order to license an activity, it must first be banned. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) governs both the release of animals into the wild and the shooting of all bird species; it would therefore need to be amended in order for both the release and shooting of gamebirds to be licensed.
For the release of pheasant, red-legged partridge and mallard to be banned, they would need to be added to Schedule 9 of the WCA, Part I for pheasant and red-legged partridge, and Part IA for mallard. This can be achieved through secondary legislation, as stipulated within the WCA. To achieve this, the Environment Secretary would simply need to lay a ‘negative’ statutory instrument before Parliament, and under the ‘negative procedure’ the change becomes law after a few weeks so long as neither the House of Commons nor House of Lords objects to it. It is worth noting that pheasant and red-legged partridge are already included on this Schedule, but only in respect of English ‘European Sites’, i.e. SPAs and SACs.
We can see that legislating for the licensing of the release of gamebirds would be fairly straightforward and quick. The same is not true for the licensing of shooting them, however.
The way that we are currently allowed to shoot birds on the quarry list during their seasons is governed by Sections 1 and 2 of the WCA. Section 1 prohibits the killing of all birds, Section 2 excepts from this prohibition those bird species included on the quarry list, outside of their close season. In order to license the shooting of gamebirds this would require primary legislation, as was necessary for the introduction of a licensing system for grouse shooting in Scotland in 2024.
Primary legislation, unlike secondary legislation, is a new Act of Parliament. As such a bill must be introduced into Parliament which then goes through the full legislative process with a multi-step scrutiny process of debate and amendment before receiving Royal Assent to become an Act and finally being commenced. This process can take many months. However, the greatest obstacle for primary legislation is actually being allocated a slot in parliamentary proceedings, which is in the gift of the government.
There is a question as to whether a bill to introduce shoot licensing would be standalone or be part of a larger wildlife bill which might also cover a trail hunting ban, close season for hares, ‘snare trap’ ban, etc. Certainly a standalone bill would be easier and swifter to deliver, but in order to get parliamentary time, it would need to be deemed a political priority by the government in the next session, commencing mid-2027, or the session after that.
Last time the Labour Party formed the government, of which Andy Burnham was a part, it sought to deregulate shooting, abolishing the archaic game licensing system in 2007. Now the Prime Minister, Mr Burnham, has the opportunity to right the missteps of Sir Keir Starmer’s government, to make policy and legislate according to the actual priorities of the nation, and support the countryside by not pursuing the harmful policies like this one that we are currently tackling. It is in the Prime Minister’s gift to govern for the countryside, not against it.