Last month I wrote about how the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs & Islands Committee had put out a public call for views in advance of this committee beginning its Stage 1 scrutiny of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill – see here.
This is the draft Bill that has been introduced by the Scottish Government in response to the recommendations made in the 2019 Werritty Review and is designed to bring in licensing for grouse moor management and put an end to the illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors.
The Stage 1 scrutiny of the Bill is due to be completed by 6 October 2023 after the Scottish Parliament recently agreed to a motion to this effect (see here).
The Rural Affairs & Islands Committee’s call for views closed on 5th May 2023 and according to a recent article in The Scotsman (unfortunately behind a paywall), over 4,000 responses were received, which was described as ‘staggering’.
The information gleaned by The Scotsman apparently came from Finlay Carson MSP (Scottish Conservatives, Dumfries & Galloway) who also happens to be the Convenor of the Committee scrutinising the Bill. Mr Carson was reportedly speaking at a GWCT-hosted grouse symposium in Perthshire on 5th May and his words were reported by Scotsman journalist Katherine Hay as follows:
“I checked the replies this morning and there has been more than 4,000 responses; 99 per cent of which have come from individuals. That is a staggering response“.
The Scotsman reports, ‘To put the figure into perspective, Mr Carson spoke about the Hunting with Dogs Bill, which made it an offence to hunt a wild animal with a dog. The Bill was passed in January and Mr Carson said drew about 2,000 replies’.
Mr Carson was then further quoted in the article:
“What we have now is a draft of unproven, and, in my view, unnecessary legislation, which could have the effect of reversing traditional conservation efforts, and to curtail the ability of land managers to effectively protect Scotland’s biodiversity and support rural livelihoods. There is a misunderstanding of the contribution grouse moors make to biodiversity“.
Mr Carson is entitled to hold a view, of course, and it’s really no surprise what his view is. However, I’d question how wise it was for him, in the influential position of the Rural Affairs Committee Convenor, to express such a partial view, no matter who his audience, whilst the serious matter of Parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill is underway.
The Committee will be calling forward various organisations to give evidence before summer recess begins on 1st July 2023 and these sessions should be available to view on Scottish Parliament TV. Given Mr Carson’s early show of hands, his performance as Convenor will be closely observed by many of us.
Other members of this cross-party committee include:
Beatrice Wishart MSP, Deputy Convenor (Scottish Liberal Democrats)
Karen Adam MSP (SNP)
Alasdair Allan MSP (SNP)
Ariane Burgess (Scottish Greens)
Jim Fairlie MSP (SNP)
Christine Grahame MSP (SNP)
Rhoda Grant (Scottish Labour)
Rachael Hamilton MSP (Scottish Conservatives)
Raptor Persecution UK 
I’m extremely glad that a close eye will be kept on Finlay Carson MSP and any others that might be suspected of preformed views and inclined to follow a preordained agenda and conclusion. The list is extremely helpful as it will alllow others so motivated to scrutinse the backgrounds of the Committee Members.
Ffrom my own point of view I see the Rural Affairs and Islands brief heavily policed by pro-hunting and pro-farming individuals with much of the lobbying done out of sight thus shielding observers from the influences involved. I would also like to think that any scientific papers offered by pro-hunt organisations are subject to heavy scrutiny prior to being accepted as evidence.
It does not bode well for a timely introduction of the legislation
He will not be alone in trying to minimise its effect an possibly trying to delay its implementation. An individual member of the public or even NGOs cannot have much influence over these 19th century views, can they?
[Ed: I’m not sure there’s any evidence that he’s intending to ‘delay its implementation’, is there?]
Of course Mr Carson is right when he says..”There is a misunderstanding of the contribution grouse moors make to biodiversity“. I do hope he is proposing to learn the proper definition of the word before he listens to the game keeping fraternity. Its been clear for years that they have little understanding of the term but they do like to pretend they do….
Well said!.
Time and again I drive past grouse moors where there is more biodiversity (certainly in terms of flora) on the road verges than the areas of managed moor. Moor management is not about biodiversity, it is about creating a monoculture of heather which will support unnatural levels of grouse population. Whilst it is true some species may benefit from this management clearly many others do not. The shooting industry gaslights the population into believing they are doing great things for biodiversity when generally the opposite it true.
Quote, There is a misunderstanding of the contributions grouse moors make to biodiversity, you are dam right there is, that`s exactly why a licencing system needs to be in place.
Rachael Hamilton is my constituency MSP. Given her well-know stance on field sports, I’d be stunned if her views in this matter deviate from those of Finlay Carson by one iota.
You have my condolences.
It is shameful that a person with such an obvious bias should hold the position of convenor of the committee scrutinising the bill. It begs the question how he came to be appointed and whether it is too late for him to be replaced by someone with a more neutral stance.
His apparent comment that the draft legislation is unproven is puzzling, given that it has not yet been passed! Maybe this was a Freudian slip – an indication of his expectations of the chances of the eventual legislation having the desired effect of reducing the persecution of protected species.
On a more positive note, at least his revealing his hand at this early stage in the proceedings should forewarn contributors and observers as to his views.
It reminds me of the extremely biassed stance of the person who introduced the infamous DGS debate in Parliament a few years ago.
Thanks again Ruth for your customary thoroughness in drawing this to our attention.
Why is he allowed to be convenor of this committee when he clearly is against it before even scrutinising the evidence?
Essentially, because the Scottish Parliament voted to approve him in his role.
The number of members each political party has represented on each committee are decided by how many seats each party won in Parliament.
The political parties then decide (among themselves) which MSPs will represent them on each committee.
Parliament approves/decides the political parties of the Convenor and Deputy for each Committee. The committees then decide who, from those parties but among themselves, will be their convenor and deputy.
That is done regardless of the issues each Committee may scrutinise over its lifetime.
Traditional? Generally only if you pick and choose your moments from the history books, and ideally if you focus only on the Edwardian to WW1 period for your model. In addition, quite conspicuously one of the legs of the 3-legged DGS stool was still in its infancy only 30yrs ago – medicated grit. That triumph of modern veterinary / pharmaceutical science is hardly traditional by any standards. Snares are though, I suppose. The ingenious survivalist handiwork of the earliest caveman, and the current crop are still at it! What a great tradition that is.
Surprised that some folk here have not previously noticed that Carson and the rest of the Tories at Holyrood have xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx for devolution, for Holyrood or for its rules and conventions. Led by Ross they have been conducting a campaign of xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx Parliament’s business, with the ultimate aim of seeing it abolished on the pretext of incompetence. These are the tactics of the far right, most obviously in the USA and in England.
The more observant will have noticed that, assisted by these tactics and by the entire British media, a number of Scottish bills, democratically passed, have been blocked by the British or have been systematically undermined in Scotland, including the HPMA.
It’s hardly surprising then that xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx as he did over the Licensing Bill and it won’t be a surprise if that continues and gets worse.
[Ed: Thanks BSA but those are serious allegations of which I have no knowledge, nor the time to check them, so not prepared to publish]
If the evidence is science based and is incontrovertible, one hopes the right decisions will be made. However, when party politics is involved, what’s “bleedin’ obvious” is often ignored.
I know Rachael Hamilton from my time as a journalist covering the Scottish Borders. She would defend to the death people’s right to xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
She and Carson will be a dangerous mix and will try to derail this bill.
He shouldn’t be convener while openly supporting the shooting industry