Lead Ammunition Group Minutes of 13th (final?) Meeting

[wymberley]

Posted for general information.

 

Minutes of the 13th Lead Ammunition Group meeting - 26th May 2015
WWT, Slimbridge, Gloucestershire (11am – 7pm)
Attendees
Dr. James Kirkwood
Prof. Len Levy
Dr. Debbie Pain
Mr. John Swift (Chair)
Secretariat
Dr. Ruth Cromie (WWT)
1. Welcome and introductions
1.1 Apologies were received from Mr. Mark Tufnell, Mr. Stephen Crouch, Mr. John Batley and Prof.
Rhys Green.
1.2 It was noted that the date of the meeting had been selected due to the potential attendance of
the majority of LAG members. Some members were subsequently unable to attend.
2. LAG Process
2.1 There was disappointment at recent resignations of Sir Barney White-Spunner, Mr. Mark
Tufnell and Mr. Stephen Crouch.
2.2 The resignation letter from the farming and landowning representative to the Secretary of State
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had not been seen by the Group and it was felt that out of
courtesy this should be provided to the Group for information and to better understand his position.
Action Point 13.1 The Chair to ask Mr. Mark Tufnell for a copy of his resignation letter to the
Secretary of State.
3. Comments on the LAG report
3.1 The vast majority of the meeting was spent in discussion and full consideration of the
numerous comments received on the draft of the LAG report. It was noted that it was disappointing
that the senders of the comments were not present to be part of the discussion and represent their
views.
Action Point 13.2 The Chair to provide feedback on comments on the draft LAG report to Mr. John
Batley and Sir Barney White-Spunner (feedback to Mr. Mark Tufnell had already been provided).
LAG meeting minutes: 13 - 26 May 2015 Page 2 of 6
4. Minutes of the 12th Meeting on June 25th 2014
4.1. There were no comments made on the published minutes of the 12th meeting.
4.2. Matters arising from those minutes
Action Point 12.1 Barney White-Spunner to recommend changes to the Code of Good Shooting
Practice, which should include direct and specific recommendations on the use of non-lead shot.
No action was reported – not carried forward due to resignation from Group.
Action point 12.2 To request FSA to review their guidance on consumption of game and venison
in the light of the LAG risk assessments.
Carried forward until FSA have considered the final LAG report.
Action Point 12.3 Prof Levy to seek advice on the possible interaction between iron oxide and
agricultural nitrates.
Completed. Information had been provided, and the issue was not considered to be of great
significance or concern.
Action Point 12.4 Sir Barney to distribute to the group a 1996 report on ricochet of steel shot
conducted by the Royal College of Military Science and commissioned by the Birmingham Proof
House.
Completed. A report by Roger Hancox from the Birmingham Proof House had been provided and
considered within the report. A separate 1996 report (Giblin and Compton 1996) from the
Shrivenham Royal Military College of Science on ballistic properties of non-toxic shot was no
longer publicly available however its main findings had been cited within the LAG report.
Action Point 12.5 PERA Subgroup to establish a consistent approach to scoring risks before
mitigation and complete that part of the Register for reporting back to the Group.
Completed and formed the basis of the Risk Register.
Action Point 12.6 All to submit any further possible mitigation options to the Mitigation Subgroup.
The Group was not aware of any additional options received.
Action Point 12.7 Mitigation Subgroup to develop mitigation action plans for measures already
discussed.
No progress was reported and the Group had not received any.
LAG meeting minutes: 13 - 26 May 2015 Page 3 of 6
Action Point 12.8 Chairman to circulate draft proposal for lead forum for comment.
Completed. The proposal had not been supported by a number of members of the LAG and the
forum did not take place. Many of the issues that would have been covered at a lead forum were
discussed at an independently run scientific symposium in in December 2014 (the Oxford Lead
Symposium).
5. Significant comments on draft LAG report circulated 10th April 2015
5.1 In light of the comments received, the following areas of the draft LAG report were discussed:
a. The key risks to wildlife (as in the consensus statement)
No new or additional evidence had been submitted which affected the report’s conclusions on level
and scale of risks to wildlife.
b. The respective levels of those risks in short medium and long term (as set out in the risk
assessments, the draft report and relevant appendices)
As above, no new or additional evidence had been provided which materially changed the levels of
risks within the report, risk assessments or other appendices.
c. Possible solutions to any significant risks (as in the relevant sections of the draft report
and Register).
There was a discussion on the need to involve strategic communications experts.
Action Point 13.3 Prof. Len Levy to contact Public Health England to help identify most
appropriate contacts (checking with FSA to confirm this is the correct procedure).
d. Possible options for managing the risk to human health from increased exposure to lead
as the result of using lead ammunition; notably in terms of food safety, including game shot
with lead and spent lead shot on agricultural land
No additional options for managing these risks had been provided.
e. Significant knowledge gaps that may hinder the identification or assessment of risks, the
development of technical solutions or the development of government policy (as set out in
the risk assessments and report sections dealing with knowledge gaps and uncertainties)
It was agreed that further contact with the gun trade representative would be valuable. (Post
meeting note. John Batley resigned having been invited to comment further.)
LAG meeting minutes: 13 - 26 May 2015 Page 4 of 6
Action Point 13.4 The Chair to contact Mr. John Batley to be kept abreast of technical issues.
f. Communication issues, and possible solutions, concerning the relaying of balanced
information on issues surrounding the use of lead ammunition to the media, general public
and stakeholders (as in relevant mitigation sections)
It was made clear that once the report is submitted to the Secretary of State, Defra and FSA must
be given time to consider its findings and during this time there was an expectation of
confidentiality from the LAG. Defra will be aware, from letters from a small number of the LAG
shooting stakeholders (plus possibly articles in the shooting press) that there have been recent
suggestions that the LAG process is flawed. How Defra will respond to that is not known.
It was agreed and strongly felt that the complete LAG findings should be made public relatively
soon as there was interest in the LAG outputs (both from the UK and overseas). If it was not
possible to do this within a short timeframe there was a suggestion that although the main report
would likely be used for consideration of potential policy development, the risk assessments were
bodies of scientific work, much of which was already in the public domain, so could likely be made
available more quickly.
g. Significant impacts of possible advice or solutions on shooting activity and associated
recreational, wildlife management, economic and employment impacts (as in relevant
mitigation sections).
Comments received from the gun trade representative had been valuable, but again no new
evidence of significant negative impacts on the above had been provided.
6. Any other matters raised by comments received
6.1 It was noted that despite the recent resignations all comments on the draft LAG report had
been fully considered. Again there was a strong sentiment that those who attended this meeting
would welcome the chance to clarify some of the comments made even though resignations had
been made ahead of dealing with the comments.
7. Next steps and date of next meeting
7.1 The Chair asked the remaining LAG members about the future of the LAG. There was a
discussion about the main purpose of LAG having been completed but that there was still a need
for a body to remain in contact with Defra and FSA.
LAG meeting minutes: 13 - 26 May 2015 Page 5 of 6
7.2 The next step was for the Chair to complete the last small amendments to the report and
prepare a final draft including appendices which would then be submitted to the Secretary of State
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Mrs. Elizabeth Truss.
Action Point 13.5 The Chair to complete the LAG report and submit to the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
7.3 Given the resignations and articles in the shooting media, the Chair sought views on
confidence in the Chair of the Group continuing in that role. It was noted that the LAG process had
taken longer than had been anticipated. However, the members present unanimously expressed
confidence in the Chair, and support for the Chair’s continuation in that role. It was agreed that the
Chair had had a very difficult task in managing the LAG process over the five years and balancing
what were sometimes very polarised views.
Action Point 13.6 Prof. Len Levy to write short note to the Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs in support of the even-handed role played by the Chair.
7.4 In summary, the final report had taken some six months to near completion and although there
had been resistance from shooting representatives to its conclusions it was felt that no substantial
evidence had been provided which had materially changed these.
8. Any other business
8.1. No other business was brought to the Group.
9. Action points carried forward
Action point 12.2 To request FSA to review their guidance on consumption of game and venison
in the light of the LAG risk assessments.
Carried forward until FSA have considered the final LAG report.
Action Point 13.1 The Chair to ask Mr. Mark Tufnell for a copy of his resignation letter to the
Secretary of State.
Action Point 13.2 The Chair to provide feedback on comments on the draft LAG report to Mr.
John Batley and Sir Barney White-Spunner (feedback to Mr. Mark Tufnell had already been
provided).
Action Point 13.3 Prof. Len Levy to contact Public Health England to help identify most
appropriate contacts (checking with FSA to confirm this is the correct procedure).
LAG meeting minutes: 13 - 26 May 2015 Page 6 of 6

Action Point 13.4 The chair to contact Mr John Batley to be kept abreast of technical issues.

Action Point 13.5 The chair to complete the LAG report and submit to the Secretary of state for

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Action Point 13.6 Prof. Len Levy to write short note to the Secretary of State for Environment and

Rural Affairs in support of the even- handed role played by the Chair

 

 

 

[panoma1]

seems this was a one sided meeting of the Anti Lead Group (ALG) at the HQ of the leading Anti Lead pressure Group with only fellow anti lead players present......no surprise they decided and agreed all action points...........as they were unopposed!

 

No surprise they (The ALG) unanimously agreed confidence in the chair (to paraphrase what Mandy Rice-Davies once said "they would wouldn't they!")..........as his reported conduct has allegedly all along favoured their anti lead agenda!

 

No surprise the (ALG) anti lead group (it can no longer qualify as the LAG!) felt it a good idea for one of their number to write to the Secretary of State (DEFRA) in an attempt to give an allegedly biased and apparantly discredited chair some credibility!

 

No surprise the ALG decided to present a report to DEFRA.........but since the resignations I don't see how it can be presented on behalf of the LAG?......surely the LAG is defunct?

[toontastic]

Lord haw haw will make sure he gets the outcome he wants while probably pocketing a pension funded by the very people he's happily shafting

Edited July 22, 2015 by toontastic

[Scully]

I found the point that recommendations to the FSA were made that it reviewed its guidance on the consumption to the general public of lead shot game etc quite telling. The claim that its consumption was injurious to the health of the general public was shot down in flames over a year ago now, and here it is yet again taking a dominant position in the LAG's (now undeniably obvious?) agenda and ultimately to DEFRA.

It is as if the LAG simply carries on with blatant disregard of the facts, happily conducting business in a happy little world of its own making. Astonishing really.

There was also mention of spent lead shot on agricultural land, and you can bet your bottom dollar much will be made of this when matters are released to the media at large.

Once major supermarkets (who command the markets for which arable farmers rely on for their sales) start advertising their wheat/barley/produce as 'lead free' then it's lead ban legislation via the back door.

Conveniently, Prof Len Levy has stated there is no cause for obvious concern regarding the interaction of iron oxide and agricultural nitrates......for now.

As for the chair seeking and attaining a vote of confidence, well, I quite like being a PWer, so I'd best not write what I really think.

Thanks for the heads up Wymberley. Off out to stock up on lead.

Why is the LAG website no longer active? Anyone know?

Edited July 22, 2015 by Scully

[CharlieT]

I have to say Scully, those were the points that jumped out to me.

The whole fiasco is a ruddy nightmare.

[Underdog]

More lead being stock piled here.

 

Outlawed by experts but no crime Underdog.

[Savhmr]

Appalling. How has this group ANY credibility left and what is BASC's stance on this now? Will the BASC be writing independently to DEFRA citing their member's disgust at the Anti-Shooting, I mean "lead" group's agendas, supported by no further evidence, just recommendations from a truncated group of anti-shooting, anti-lead, anti-shooter activists? I damn well hope so!!!

[wymberley]

Appalling. How has this group ANY credibility left and what is BASC's stance on this now? Will the BASC be writing independently to DEFRA citing their member's disgust at the Anti-Shooting, I mean "lead" group's agendas, supported

by no further evidence, just recommendations from a truncated group of anti-shooting, anti-lead, anti-shooter activists? I damn well hope so!!!

Freudian slip perhaps. Could well imagine that he/she is quite upset.

 

Very sorry, I'll get me coat.

[Savhmr]

Freudian slip perhaps. Could well imagine that he/she is quite upset.

 

Very sorry, I'll get me coat.

 

 

My bad!

[grrclark]

Not an entirely unexpected outcome from what was a very one sided meeting. I got a further reply from Defra last week to my follow up mail questioning how they would evaluate the recommendations of the LAG, but it was again vague and written politically (reading between the lines it was fairly dismissive of the LAG).

 

It may well be worth a PW campaign for each of us to write to our MP to ask them to put forward our opinions to Liz Truss and ensure that the report is considered in an appropriate manner. Sadly I doubt there will be much of an uptake, but I am happy to knock up a template for those who may be interested.

 

As it is an English & Welsh only consideration for now I'm sure my SNP MP would love to carry the flag into battle against all you Southern softy types

 

It worked for hunting with dogs after all............

[Scully]

Liz Truss can be contacted through her DEFRA email address:: defra.helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk

I haven't contacted her as yet but will be sometime this week.

[The_Engineer]

Such brazenly blatant bias against lead. Genuinely think Scully is correct: legislation through the back door will creep its way in if full on bans don't come first.

 

Whatever happened to no evidence, no legislation?

[Savhmr]

Let the stock piling commence. If it comes in, a majority of shooters I reckon will simply ignore it and carry on regardless. It's the only way sometimes to deal with these immoral corrupt back door moves by the great unelected.

[kaunda]

Friend Swift and his cohorts - Policy based evidence

Barney & Co ( and the rest of us)- Evidence based policy

[Scully]

I find the sort of spin implied by interested parties with agendas to meet abhorrent and regard it as an insidious to the point of corruption, method of achieving ones aims in the face of a lack of sympathetic evidence to that agenda.

No one is disputing the toxicity of lead, it is the effect to what extent that toxicity has on human health and our environment that is in question.

As I've mentioned before, Londons air quality is more than twice the EU maximum toxicity acceptance level, and 20,000 people died last year from respiratory related illnesses due to toxic air quality in the UK.

To keep things in perspective, does anyone know how many people died from the effects of eating lead shot game last year, or how many UK wildfowl died from lead poisoning through ingestation of spent lead shot?

Does anyone know how many people died or even suffered ill health from eating cereals or other crops as a direct result of those crops being grown in land over which spent lead shot has fallen?

[grrclark]

All eminently sensible Scully and no doubt that is why such things are not considered in agenda led committees, facts and objective assessment are dreadfully inconvenient things when espousing ideology.

 

The most insulting thing is that the remaining members of the LAG are so undisguised in their agenda, yet still purport to offer a balanced report. I find that offensively ignorant and arrogant, it really makes me angry.

[Underdog]

Told you lads before, get a flint lock now!

[Whitebridges]

I find the sort of spin implied by interested parties with agendas to meet abhorrent and regard it as an insidious to the point of corruption, method of achieving ones aims in the face of a lack of sympathetic evidence to that agenda.

No one is disputing the toxicity of lead, it is the effect to what extent that toxicity has on human health and our environment that is in question.

As I've mentioned before, Londons air quality is more than twice the EU maximum toxicity acceptance level, and 20,000 people died last year from respiratory related illnesses due to toxic air quality in the UK.

To keep things in perspective, does anyone know how many people died from the effects of eating lead shot game last year, or how many UK wildfowl died from lead poisoning through ingestation of spent lead shot?

Does anyone know how many people died or even suffered ill health from eating cereals or other crops as a direct result of those crops being grown in land over which spent lead shot has fallen?

 

If I may say so a briiliant post Scully.

[wymberley]

 

Action Point 12.4 Sir Barney to distribute to the group a 1996 report on ricochet of steel shot

conducted by the Royal College of Military Science and commissioned by the Birmingham Proof

House.

Completed. A report by Roger Hancox from the Birmingham Proof House had been provided and

considered within the report. A separate 1996 report (Giblin and Compton 1996) from the

Shrivenham Royal Military College of Science on ballistic properties of non-toxic shot was no

longer publicly available however its main findings had been cited within the LAG report.

 

 

Whereas the main thrust of this exercise is the toxicity of lead shot, it is not the be all and end all.

 

As was originally specified any replacement must meet four criteria of which we are all aware and for the vast majority of us this just means one option - steel.

 

Once the ricochet report conducted by the Royal College of Military Science (RCMS) got into the hands of the MoD, the 'splash back' distance for shotguns used on military ranges using lead shot was immediately doubled in the event that steel shot was used.

 

The report mentioning Giblin and Compton 1996 was not from the RCMS but University College London and their Ballistic Research Laboratory. This was approximately 90% funded by Defra and they received the report in March 1996. A point that the above extract indicates had been forgotten. I'm reasonably sure of my comments as Roger Giblin sent me a copy in appreciation of my support for the work. The majority of muzzle velocities (MV) for all materials tested fell within 10% of 400m/s (V0) and this is the figure that is used in the calculations for the tables in the report. Current CIP regulations specify an MV (V2.5) of 400 and 430 for the two categories. Consequently, in addition to the suspected flaws in the toxicity element of the report, it would appear that the ballistic elements are similarly suspect as the information utilised is somewhat dated.

 

My worry is that Defra accepts the 'formal' report carte blanche without any further investigation. One can only hope that both reports submitted are publicised before any definitive decision is made.

[grrclark]

 

My worry is that Defra accepts the 'formal' report carte blanche without any further investigation. One can only hope that both reports submitted are publicised before any definitive decision is made.

Defra did state in their response to me that the report would be subject to appropriate scrutiny and would consider not just the LAG report, but other pertinent evidence also.

 

I think the LAG was a placatory gesture and the output of that group will carry little weight, we just need to see which side they were placating.

[wymberley]

Defra did state in their response to me that the report would be subject to appropriate scrutiny and would consider not just the LAG report, but other pertinent evidence also.

 

I think the LAG was a placatory gesture and the output of that group will carry little weight, we just need to see which side they were placating.

Taking your last point first, I have to say that I've always wondered if that could be the case.

 

However, if we're wrong (in my case, my normal default position) the problem we then have is that Defra considered, initially at least, that the LAG was the appropriate body, suitably staffed, to scrutinise the evidence and reach an unbiased conclusion based on that evidence and such that would withstand peer review if required. History reflects that the chances of any political body learning from their mistakes is minimal at best and the thought of LAG 2 is a sequel nobody wants to see.

[grrclark]

It is a worry and one of the reasons why I pressed Defra twice to get a fairly definitive statement of how they would consider the recommendations and the supporting evidence.

 

Although their response fell short of that definitive statement it was written in a way that suggests to me they certainly don't feel the need to act upon anything the LAG says. It did come across as fairly dismissive.

[wymberley]

It's back!

 

http://www.leadammunitiongroup.org.uk/

[Scully]

That's interesting. Will have a read later on. Thanks for that.

[panoma1]

The link will not open and comes up as "bad gateway"