Press release from REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform in Scotland, ahead of today’s debate on the Agriculture Bill:
AGRICULTURE BILL AMENDMENTS COULD STOP BIG FARMING PAYOUTS FOR GROUSE SHOOTING ESTATES
REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform, has welcomed amendments to the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill that could end generous public funding for grouse shooting estates.
The Stage 3 bill is due to be debated by the Scottish Parliament this afternoon (Tuesday 18 June).
The amendments (#37, #38 and #39) were submitted by Scottish Greens MSP Arianne Burgess. They seek to address the issue of shooting estates being indirectly supported by farm subsidies, with some estates receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money each year.
The amendments would allow ministers to:
#37: rule out specific land uses from getting agricultural subsidies in the future;
#38: end public funding for estates where the primary activity on the land is driven grouse shooting;
#39: ensure that wildlife criminals and irresponsible owners cannot benefit from public funding.
Eliza Chiswell, REVIVE Campaigner, said:
“REVIVE welcomes Ariane Burgess MSP’s amendments to the Agriculture Bill that would potentially stop grouse shooting estates from receiving public money.
“At its launch in 2018, REVIVE expressed shock that shooting estates could be receiving subsidies and it continues to be very concerned that large sums of public money is indirectly supporting, amongst other things, the killing of hundreds of thousands of foxes, stoats, weasels and crows so that more hundreds of thousands of grouse can be shot for entertainment.
“It is deeply worrying, for example, that an estate like Invermark, which is “principally a sporting estate” [see here] in 2023 received public money to the tune of £213,545 [see here].
“REVIVE has asked its supporters to tell all MSPs that these amendments have strong public support because they ensure that valuable public money supports food production rather than shooting. We hope the amendments receive strong cross-party support and prove to be successful.”
ENDS
The Scottish Greens have also issued a press statement ahead of today’s debate:
The Scottish Government must curb public subsidies for shooting estates and instead use it to support small farmers and the transition to greener agriculture, say the Scottish Greens.
The call comes ahead of the Scottish Parliament voting on the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, which will have its final vote this week.
The Scottish Greens rural affairs spokesperson, Ariane Burgess MSP, will be moving amendments that would end subsidies for land that is dominated by grouse moors and boost support for small farmers.
Shooting estates are being indirectly supported by farm subsidies, with one example cited by the REVIVE coalition as having received over £200,000 a year. This allows them to continue the damaging practices of widespread burning of peatland vegetation and the unnecessary killing of our wildlife.
Ms Burgess, said: “It’s grossly unfair that enormous shooting estates are benefiting from subsidies paid for by the taxpayer.
“This is public money that should be invested in supporting farmers and rural communities to transition to net-zero, but instead it’s being pocketed by giant landowners and is effectively subsidising the management of Scotland’s uplands for bloodsports.
“My amendments would prohibit subsidies for driven grouse moors, and ensure that Scottish Ministers cannot hand out public money to wildlife criminals. I hope that all MSPs who are concerned about animal welfare will support these amendments.
“The last 14 years have been painful for a lot of people. The last thing we should be doing in a cost of living crisis is handing out subsidies to wealthy landowners for organised cruelty.”
Ms Burgess will also be moving amendments that would support farmers to reduce the environmental impacts of the agriculture industry and assist small to medium scale farmers, crofters and growers to purchase land for food production.
Ms Burgess added: “Small scale farmers play an invaluable role in our food production and in their communities, but, with the current pressures, many are finding it harder to run a sustainable business.
“Many of them are young and new entrants, and I hope that this bill will provide them with extra support to allow them to purchase and enhance the land around them.”
ENDS
The Stage 3 debate on the Agriculture Bill is expected to start around 3pm in the main chamber and can be watched live on Scottish Parliament TV here.
Raptor Persecution UK 
And about time too. Public money for public good I say. Fingers crossed these amendments are accepted.
I agree wholeheartedly. Why should the public pay for farming subsidies to go to grouse moors? they are NOT farms, by any stretch of the imagination!
This sounds like common sense. Why are these massive estates being subsidised? I would like to hear a response from the estates or BASC etc. justifying this, or at least giving their side of the story. As it currently stands the massive concentration of our land in these estates is an abomination.
Welcome news. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that we also subsidise the cost of administering their firearms licences.
Absolutely: put a few sheep out there and pretend they are farming, instead of employing four legged heather cutters, is just a con. It needs to end.
Well, that’s 2 hours of my life I won’t get back! All three amendments defeated.
Aside from watching a far more efficient parliamentary system of debating and voting taking place than that of Westminster, it’s depressing to witness the predominance of Members supporting grouse shooting with pusillanimous arguments in favour and equally specious arguments against scrutiny, monitoring and even just basic getting on with the job in hand.
Grouse shooting is not agriculture and certainly not ‘conservation’. It’s a commercial leisure activity that has significant adverse environmental impacts. I also find it bizarre that in the 21st century a majority still attempt to dignify the killing of living creatures for ‘fun’ by citing ‘tradition’ and ‘economics’. It is a moral and environmental abomination.
Upland estates are traditionally ‘Mixed Estates’, sheep, sport and forestry. In Strathbraan today I walked through one of the worst crime estates in Scotland. The inbye was heaving with sheep and shepherds were active. If an estate gets £200,000 agriculture subsidy they will have done £200,000 of work. Same from FLS if they plant trees . Subsidy and fiscal measures are ultimately the way to remove driven grouse but I doubt you will get there by bringing down the whole system just to get knock out grouse and parliament obviously agreed.
No one was suggesting ‘bringing down the whole system’. Just not funding a commercial leisure activity that is not related to farming. A farmer near me hosts Moto-X events. He doesn’t get subsidies for that. Why should he?
Agriculture payments support agriculture and must meet qualifying criteria. What happens to the funds in the overall budget is the farmer’s business but no upland farming business is going to survive if it starves its core business.. Moto-X is not a recognised land based industry and is therefore not supported……
“but no upland farming business is going to survive if it starves its core business..”
And by definition from the amendment, that ‘core business’ would be driven grouse shooting:-(
“What happens to the funds in the overall budget is the farmer’s business”
But it is TAX PAYER’s money we are talking about, and what activities it should be spent on.
“Subsidy and fiscal measures are ultimately the way to remove driven grouse but I doubt you will get there by bringing down the whole system”
That is a false dichotomy: Amendment 38b “In section 10, page 5, line 27, at end insert— <( ) refuse to provide support to a landowner if the primary activity on the land is the management of driven grouse shooting,>”Now explain where that “brings down the whole system”.
It withdraws support from two legitimate enterprises, Agriculture and Forestry, which are two of the three foundations of the upland economy beyond tourism. It does so apparently as a measure of collective punishment for everyone in the local economy because they have harboured driven grouse in their midst. It matters not whether you happen to think that these enterprises actually subsidise driven grouse or that you happen to think they are all subsidising crime – two generalised assumptions as arguments for collective punishment.
“It withdraws support from two legitimate enterprises, Agriculture and Forestry, which are two of the three foundations of the upland economy beyond tourism”
Only where driven grouse shooting is the PRIMARY activity of the land owner.
You are defending the hypothetical case of where 99% of the land use could be driven grouse shooting, but because 1% is not, the land owner qualifies for TAX PAYER subsidies.
“It does so apparently as a measure of collective punishment for everyone in the local economy because they have harboured driven grouse in their midst.”
That is a kind of blackmail of the TAX PAYER isn’t it? The tax payer should not be allowed (according to you) to withhold subsidies where the LAND OWNER unilaterally decides to devote more than 50% of his/her land activities to driven grouse shooting because… those employees of the other activities might be adversely effected.
Yet it remains the decision of the landowner whether to continue with their grouse shooting activities – and thereby deny public subsidies for those other activities – or to find something else to do with that land, until more than 50% of the activities are not driven grouse shooting based.
So, if there is any ‘collective punishment’ going on, it would be by the decision of the land owner!
I am always amazed at the convoluted ‘arguments’ put forward to defend shooting (or, in this case, tax payer subsidies for shooting).
Public money for private shooting estates – you couldn’t make it up! We Should know where our money is going, the more people that know, the more they can question, but that wouldn’t suit the landowners would it?
Aarhus was news to me and most of the public.Is this the case too in England and Wales involving pleasant and other game shooting that they can get farming subsidier????
Name the guilty parties…
From https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions
Ammendment #37: rule out specific land uses from getting agricultural subsidies in the future:
SNP: 56 votes AGAINST
Conservatives: 27 votes AGAINST
Liberal Democrats: 3 votes AGAINST
Alba: 1 vote AGAINST
Labour: 19 votes FOR
Greens: 7 votes FOR
Ammendment #39: ensure that wildlife criminals and irresponsible owners cannot benefit from public funding.
SNP: 57 votes AGAINST
Conservatives: 27 votes AGAINST
Liberal Democrats: 2 votes AGAINST
Alba: 1 vote AGAINST
Labour: 19 votes FOR
Greens: 7 votes FOR.
Apparently, John Swinney claims that the SNP are “the only party left of centre!”
https://news.sky.com/story/snp-will-have-most-left-wing-manifesto-of-general-election-leader-john-swinney-says-13154318#:~:text=John%20Swinney%20accused%20Labour%20of,%2C%22%20he%20told%20Sky%20News.
You can see the names of who voted here:
https://www.parliament.scot/api/sitecore/CustomMedia/OfficialReport?meetingId=15940
Hang on! Are we not constantly told that shooting brings loadsa money into the economy of any area with shooting interests?
If this is true, how come shooting estates need subsidy?
Can anyone help me out here, as I’m confused?
just a quick point here, in 2018 one estate in England recieved just short of 1.8 million pounds in subsidies. The Owner was on the top 100 rich list this was at a time when pig farmers were struggling to pay for food with some historical family farms going out of business and dairy farmers were knocking milk off the shelves in supermarkets because they were being paid less than what it cost to produce. Great this has finally been discussed and hopefully one day this public money will finally reach the people who need and deserve it. It would be good if there was a ceiling to how much could be claimed and claimants were means tested like the majority of people claiming government benefits are