Birmingham Proof House, Main Court Room
Attendees
Mr John Swift - British Association of Shooting and Conservation
Dr Deborah
Pain - Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust
Dr Stephen
Tapper - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
Mr John
Batley - The Gun Trade Association Ltd
Prof Len Levy - Institute
of Environment and Health
Dr James
Kirkwood - Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
Mr Adrian Gane - Country Land and Business Association
Mr Robert
Gray - The Countryside Alliance
Ms Lucy Munro - Defra
Guest Attendees:
Mr Jeff Knott - Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds
Dr Alastair Leake - Game and Wildlife
Conservation Trust
Pre-meeting announcement
Before the meeting got underway it was announced that
Defra will be unable, for the time being, to provide the secretariat support
for the Group. FSA had been approached to see whether they could temporarily
provide the required support but due to a tightening of their resources also,
they are unable to do so. The Chair then opened the issue up to the Group.
- It was confirmed
that there was still support for this Group from Ministers.
- All agreed that
given the challenge presented by this development, the work of the Group should
proceed.
- It was stated
that withdrawal of the secretariat, even on a temporary basis, will be
perceived by onlookers that Ministers are withdrawing their support. - This was
recognised but re-iterated that this is not the case.
There was a discussion on the possible options for
providing cover for the secretariat.
- The replacing
secretariat will need to be as neutral as possible;
- It is important
that whoever is taking the minutes is not contributing to the Group. Various
suggestions were put forward such as having this a rotational role between
organisations. However, the best suggestion, at this stage of the process, was
to invite the Chair’s secretary to provide the support. Logistically, it was
agreed to be the best course. If some members of the Group were to find that
this presented problems for them, then arrangements could be revisited along
with the processes for publishing the minutes. The current arrangements for
processing the minutes should continue. That is, that draft minutes are
circulated giving all members the opportunity to comment. The Chair would have
the final say on the recollection of the discussion and the Group were reminded
that meetings were recorded for this purpose. If there are particular areas of
contention, these can be flagged for discussion at the next meeting and the
published minutes should reflect this as being entitled the provisional
minutes.
It was also asked whether this meant that Defra would
not be able to provide a venue for meetings. It was explained that, this would
be difficult for the London location as Defra personnel would be required to
escort visitors and make the arrangements, but there is room for negotiation. The
Chair explained though that meeting location was not a main concern as between
the Group there are various options for providing venues.
1. Apologies,
welcome and introductions.
1.1 Apologies were received from Mark Avery and
Stephen Crouch.
- It was asked as
to whether Jeff Knott had officially replaced Mark Avery. It was explained that
this was not the case.
- It was announced
that Stephen Tapper is due to retire at the end of this year. Alastair Leake
will be taking on his policy position at GWCT and discussions have been held
with the Chair and the current secretariat, with endorsement from FSA, on the
proposal for replacing Dr Tapper on the Group. This is in the context of how
each member of the Group independently represents their sector rather than the
organisation from which they are from. The proposal has been accepted and Dr
Leake was welcomed to the Group. Len Levy as Chair of the PESG has also
accepted his replacing Dr Tapper on the PESG.
2. Review of the
published minutes of the 29 September. (All)
2.1 The Chair and secretariat reported that
there was no further feedback on the minutes of the last meeting.
3. Review of the
Action Points from the last meeting. (All)
3.1 Action point 4.1 Dr Benford to provide a short
introduction to her presentation for publication on the website. – complete. Text has been provided by Dr Benford.
This is to be posted on the website
to accompany the presentation.
New action point 5.1 Introduction to
Dr Benford’s presentation to be placed on the website.
3.2 Action point 4.2 Publish Dr Benford’s presentation on
the website and if there are questions received via the website they will be
passed to the most appropriate member(s) of the Group for a concise response. The Chair confirmed that there have
been no comments or queries received on the presentation.
3.3 Action point 4.3 Publish the PESG ToR on the
website – complete
3.4 Action point 4.4: Reference list to be amended and
published on the website – complete. The Chair
made the point that new references arising during the course of the work should
be brought before future meetings allowing all members to be kept informed.
Given that the main Group meets quite regularly, the PESG should bring any new
reference before future meetings before it is included in the published
evidence base on the website.
New action point 5.2 an item on new
references is to be added to the agenda of future meetings.
3.5 Action point 4.5 FSA to consider how the PESG may
contribute the research protocol of FSA Scotland’s game consumption research.
FSA report that the work is at an extremely advanced
stage of commissioning and therefore it is not possible for the PESG to input
into the scope or procedures. Colleagues in Scotland have agreed that
they will produce a short document outlining the scope and procedures which
they will happily submit to the PESG for info and comment.
3.6 Action point 4.6 The current PESG is to consider
suggestions (for expansion) and as a starting point ask those suggested if they
might be prepared to do this work – especially from the deer and gamebird
sectors. If so they are requested to provide the PESG with their technical
backgrounds. The
PESG have been asked to weigh up the suggestions on persons put forward to
present to the main Group. [This will be reported on later in the meeting.]
3.7 Action 4.7 Once the PESG
has reached its conclusions on how to expand the PESG this should be shared
with the main Group through correspondence including brief biographies and
technical skills. The final decision would be considered by the main Group at
the next meeting. [This will be reported on later in the meeting]
3.8 Three
action points had been carried over. The first of these was: Action 2.6 John
Batley to circulate a proposal with draft terms of reference for his proposed
subgroup.
- This
work is still ongoing. John Batley continues to work with the cartridge
manufacturers and proof authorities. Once all the information is gathered he
will be happy to present this to the Group. In gathering the data so far it seems
that it is not yet necessary to start a subgroup as the clear requirement for
it has not yet been established. Statistics on how many cartridges are used,
what they are used for, what the various different types of cartridge are, the
ballistics involved etc. is the type of information being collected. It was
agreed at this stage of the process that it is sufficient for the group to know
this work underway.
- The
Chair raised here that there is second process being undertaken in parallel to
the Group’s work (the first being the work of FSA Scotland) that the ammunition
trade are required to be actively engaged in; this is compliance with the REACH
regulation. The requirement is for the trade to register their products and
substances with the competent authority. Within the process the industry have
to undertake a risk assessment which involves assessing risks to wildlife and
human health. AFEMS is the European gun and ammunition trade group conducting
the risk assessment for the ammunitions industry.
It
is understood that the deadline for submissions from any legal entity using
more than
a thousand tonnes/30 million cartridges would be fairly imminent. However noone
was aware of any entity producing or using in this quantity in Europe so therefore 2013 would be the timescale for reporting, this being the
timescale for producers of less than a thousand tonnes.
-
There
was agreement in the Group that a request for information should be made to
enable the Group to be more informed on this process so that this can be
factored in to the Group’s work.
Action
point 5.3 JB to request of the Chair of AFEMS the background on the risk
assessment so that a note can be presented at the next meeting.
3.9 Action
2.7 Defra to pull together all the regulations, guidelines and Directives which
are relevant to the Lead Ammunition Group. A draft has been circulated for comment to
be discussed at the [this] meeting. Group members have been invited to
comment on the draft in the meantime. As there has been no feedback yet
this item was not discussed. One member indicated that they would like the
opportunity to provide this. The Chair is aware that there are constraints on
Defra’s time so if they cannot complete the job of finalizing this document for
publication the Group will find a way of completing this action.
3.10 Action
2.12 TA to amend Gantt chart for sign off at next meeting. Apologies were
given that this has not been completed. The Chair agreed to undertake this
action to ensure that key targets and milestones could be recorded properly.
4. Progress
report of the PE subgroup. (LL etc.)
4.1 The
Chair suggested to the Chair of the PESG that the subgroup should amend its
name to encompass all that it is now tasked with. The suggestion is to change
the name to the Primary Evidence and Risk Assessment subgroup. This amendment
was agreed, it was recognised that this presented a more accurate description
of the subgroup as it has evolved. The PERA SG Chair took the opportunity here
to re-iterate that the work of the subgroup is concerned with establishing the facts
and not about making decisions on what should be done etc.
4.2 It
was asked how far the subgroup had got with assessing potential candidates for
its expansion. It was reported that a few names had been suggested to cover the
two main areas of the gamebird and deer sector. Two that had been suggested at
the previous meeting had been followed up namely:
- Rhys Green
was nominated. His background is that he is a professor at Cambridge University and is also affiliated with the RSPB. He is also on the Scientific
Advisory Board of GWCT and in terms of expertise he is an extremely experienced
statistician and also well experienced in critically evaluating scientific
evidence. His recent publications include some on toxins/contaminants in the
environment. As well as the coverage of the gamebird sector, he is considered
to have the background to assist with all aspects of the risk assessment
process.
- Peter
Green was nominated and is the Chair’s suggestion for covering the deer sector.
He is a veterinary scientist who is well respected in his field. The Chair has
approached both the British Deer society and the Board of the Deer
Initiative/partnership. The BDS have sounded out Peter Green and he has
indicated that he would be happy to be approached.
4.3 The
subgroup Chair thanked the Group for these suggestions and a small number of
others that had been suggested to him. He made it clear that subgroup members
would need to be fully engaged with the process and prepared to take on report
writing. At an early stage the PERA SG is going to be addressing the toxic
risks from lead to humans and wildlife: To humans from eating contaminated
food, to wildlife through eating spent lead gunshot, contaminated animals and
possible environmental contamination. Decisions would need to be made through
identifying who might be able to contribute.
4.4 It
was confirmed that there will need to be at least three scribes for three
separate sections who will need to pull together the vast array of evidence
which is out there.
4.5 An
area of contention is whether this process should have stakeholder engagement or
whether this process should be carried out by those with the scientific
expertise. There were strong arguments on each side. On one side it was said
that it would add a lot more credibility to the subgroup to have someone from
the interest groups on the subgroup. On the other, that risk assessment will be
a purely factual critical analysis of the information which is out there so
should only be conducted by those with the specific experience. It was further
argued that it appears that two things are being confused – critical analysis
of the science and then putting things into context.
4.6 The
Chair decided to close the discussion as the argument could continue and pushed
to establish what could be agreed upon. It was recognised that there is benefit
in keeping this subgroup small. It should be made clear that whoever is on the
subgroup will be acting in an independent capacity rather than a representative
of their organisation.
It was
concluded that there have been strong proposals for Rhys Green and Peter Green of
whom the whole Group had had prior knowledge since the last meeting that their
names were under consideration. They should be now formally invited. The Chair
made it clear that this can be revisited and further names could be added in
future.
4.7 The
proposed subgroup will be as follows:
- Prof. Len
Levy (Chair)
- Dr Peter
Green.
- Prof. Rhys Green
- Dr John Harradine
- Dr
Alastair Leake
- Dr Debbie Pain
Action
point 5.4 The PERA SG Chairman to formally invite Prof. Rhys Green and Dr Peter
Green to join the subgroup.
Action
point 5.5 All members of the subgroup to provide their brief biographies so
that these can be posted on the website.
Action
point 5.6 The Group agreed that the PERA SG was now in the position to start
work on risk assessment and report back to the next meeting.
5. Discussion
on the imminent publication of the Compliance with the Environmental Protection
(Restriction on use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999
5.1 It
was announced to the Group that this report is due to be published on 9
November. It was explained that this is a Defra commissioned study contracted
to WWT. The Study on compliance was undertaken in two parts: A game dealer
survey which examined the carcasses of ducks from English game dealers to
determine what type of shot was used and a survey by questionnaire of practitioners
(BASC members) and shoot providers (CLA members). It was confirmed that WWT
will be issuing a press-release.
[Post meeting
note: The report can be viewed at the following link: : http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16075 ]
Action
point 5.7 PERA SG to add this report to the list of references for publication.
6. Communications.
6.1 Communications
were reported to be quiet since the last meeting.
6.2 The Chair explained
how he was called to a meeting with Almut Bittehoff at DG SANCO (the Commission
DG Health and Consumer Protection). This followed from WWT and Birdlife having
written to DG Environment and DG SANCO about the wildlife and public/human
health issues. In this meeting the Chair explained about the Group’s work and
this was met with interest and encouragement.
6.3 It was
explained that in due course DG SANCO will need to be addressing the issues
concerning human health arising from lead. Proposals will come forward on
tackling the issue but as yet no timescale or forms of action have been identified.
There would Member State consultation on proposed actions which would go to the
FSA. It is important to note that the Commission does not have specific
timescales to operate under. But it is established that lead in food is a
substantive issue which needs to be addressed. The issue gets raised through a
number of different sources and in context; lead in ammunition is just one user
of lead.
6.4 It was further
explained that the EU Commission asked EFSA to produce a scientific opinion on
lead and so this then obliges the Commission to address the issues the opinion
raises. WWT and BirdLife wrote to DG SANCO to find out how this will be
evaluated and implemented. Also important to note is that this is the beginning
of the process.
7. Any other Business.
7.1 It was again
asked when the BASC research committee are going to meet (this is in relation
to an ongoing issue recorded in previous minutes). The Chair said that this
information was not to hand and the answers on the subject have not changed
since the last meeting.
8. Date of the next
meeting.
8.1 This was agreed
to be the 10 February 2011. The venue is to be agreed.
Summary of Action
Points
Action point 5.1 Introduction to Dr
Benford’s presentation to be placed on the website.
Action point 5.2 An item
on new references is to be added to the agenda of future meetings.
Action point 5.3 JB to
request of the Chair of AFEMS the background on the risk assessment so that a
note can be presented at the next meeting.
Action point 5.4 The PERA SG Chairman
to formally invite Prof. Rhys Green and Dr Peter Green to join the subgroup.
Action point 5.5 All members of the
subgroup to provide their brief biographies so that these can be posted on the
website.
Action point 5.6 The Group agreed
that the PERA SG was now in the position to start work on risk assessment and
report back to the next meeting.
Action point 5.7 PERA SG to add this
report to the list of references for publication.
Actions re-assigned
Action 2.12 TA to amend
Gantt chart for sign off at next meeting.
New action point 5.8
Secretariat to amend the Gantt chart for sign off at the next meeting.
Action 2.7 Defra to pull
together all the regulations, guidelines and Directives which are relevant to
the Lead Ammunition Group. A draft has been circulated for comment to be
discussed at the [this] meeting. Group members have been invited to
comment on the draft in the meantime.
New action point 5.9
Secretariat to circulate an amended version of the document which pulls
together all the regulations, guidelines and Directives which are relevant to
the Lead Ammunition Group.
|