The Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs & Islands Committee met again on Wednesday 21st February to undertake its second day of consideration of the Stage 2 amendments of the Wildlife Management (grouse moor reform) Bill.
For new readers, this is proposed new legislation to regulate grouse shooting and its associated management practices by way of licensing schemes, introduced because of the continued illegal persecution of birds of prey on many Scottish grouse moors.
A report on what happened during the first day of consideration that took place two weeks ago can be found here.
Two separate sessions were required on Wednesday (one in the morning and one in the evening) to get through all the amendments, bringing Stage 2 of this Bill to a close.
Newly-appointed Agriculture Minister Jim Fairlie MSP led the Government’s response, taking over from Gillian Martin MSP whose Ministerial responsibilities have been moved elsewhere after the recent mini-reshuffle.
There were two other new faces on the Committee – Emma Harper MSP (SNP) who replaces former Committee member Jim Fairlie, and Elena Whitham MSP (SNP) who replaces former Committee member Karen Adam MSP who left after taking on commitments on a different Committee.
Other MSPs in attendance were Edward Mountain MSP (Conservative), Jamie Halco Johnstone MSP (Conservative, representing Stephen Kerr MSP) and Colin Smyth MSP (Labour), none of whom were eligible to vote on the Stage 2 amendments but who were present to speak to amendments they had lodged.
Wednesday’s two sessions were straight forward and once again there weren’t any big surprises with Committee members mostly voting along party lines, which meant that the numerous wrecking amendments put forward by the Conservatives, designed to weaken the Bill, were not supported by the majority. It also meant that various amendments put forward by Colin Smyth MSP (Labour), designed to strengthen the Bill, were also unsupported by the majority. Overall, the Bill passed Stage 2 pretty much in the format that the Government had introduced it, which is what had been anticipated.
I won’t go through the amendments one by one because there were too many. For those interested in proceedings the archive video of the two meetings are linked below, as is the meeting transcript.
The big ‘wins’ from our perspective were as follows:
There was majority support for Ministers to be given the power to add additional gamebird species to the licence if there is evidence that wildlife crime, such as raptor persecution, is taking place to facilitate the management of gamebirds such as pheasants and red-legged partridge. Ministers will have the authority to take evidence, consult and then vote on adding those species to the licence at a later date, if deemed appropriate.
This is a very important amendment especially given the recent trend in the release of red-legged partridge on grouse moors where shooting red grouse is no longer a viable commercial activity. Red-legged partridge and/or pheasants may be used by some grouse shooting estates as an alternative quarry if their licence for shooting red grouse has been revoked so having the power to include these additional species on the licence will close the loophole that some grouse moor managers may have sought to exploit in order to continue killing raptors without consequence. Amendments seeking to exclude this provision were lodged by Conservatives Edward Mountain and Rachael Hamilton but they were not supported.
There was support for an amendment that provides a requirement for the use of medicated grit to be included in the Code of Practice being developed to support the new legislation. This is a timely amendment given the research published last week by the League Against Cruel Sports and Wild Justice that demonstrated widespread bad practice and the complete lack of monitoring of medicated grit use (see here).
REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform has just released a campaign video to highlight those findings:
The details of what requirements will be made in the Code of Practice in relation to the use of medicated grit are still to be determined but the Government’s support for medicated grit use to be included is very good news indeed, especially when some grouse shooting organisations have been arguing against its inclusion.
The Minister discussed his intention to introduce a requirement in the Bill to undertake monitoring and reporting of raptor populations – specifically golden eagle, hen harrier and peregrine, species identified in the Werritty Review as being significantly impacted by raptor persecution crimes on grouse moors.
This monitoring would provide a key measure of success (or failure) of the Bill to tackle raptor persecution, which is one of its primary objectives, and whether the new legislation has been effective in this respect. The Minister said he would return to this issue at Stage 3 after discussions with NatureScot and the Scottish Raptor Study Group about the resources required to undertake monitoring and reporting. Rachael Hamilton lodged an amendment that called for a limit on the reporting of some raptor persecution incidents – she wanted to only include crimes that had been proven by conviction. In other words, to exclude incidents described as ‘suspicious’ such as those relating to the suspicious disappearance of satellite-tagged raptors on grouse moors. Her amendment was not supported.
One of the most significant ‘wins’ came from the majority vote to support the introduction of additional powers for the Scottish SPCA to allow them to investigate offences under the Wildlife & Countryside Act – an extension of their current powers to investigate offences under the Animal Health & Welfare Act. As regular blog readers will know, this issue has been kicked down the road repeatedly by the Scottish Government over a 13-year period (see here for timeline) so getting support after so long is particularly satisfying.
Of course there were the usual inaccurate and non-sensical objections from the Conservatives, with Edward Mountain claiming this “would give powers to people who have never had such powers before” and “It should be the police, not other people, who implement the law” and “It would give powers to third parties who I do not believe are qualified or have the legal training to exercise such powers“.
These continued claims about the SSPCA’s supposed inexperience and inability to investigate wildlife crime are laughable, given that they’re already an official specialist reporting agency to the Crown Office so know all about due process, they already work in partnership with Police Scotland and other agencies in raptor persecution investigations, and through their skill, experience and expertise routinely bring some of the most sadistic wildlife-abusers to justice, including badger baiters such as the recent case against a depraved gamekeeper employed on the Millden Estate in the Angus Glens (here). Edward Mountain should be thanking the Scottish SPCA for its tireless and often challenging work, and its willingness to undertake even more of it under this new legislation at no cost to the tax payer. Seriously, who would want to oppose the addition of more expert professionals to bring the wildlife criminals to justice?
Another big win came via Kate Forbes’s amendment to see the closing of the muirburn season brought forward to 31st March. Currently, gamekeepers can burn heather up until 15th April, and in some cases even to the 30th April where landowner discretion allows. This late season burning overlaps with the breeding season of various moorland bird species, and when that breeding season is predicted to get earlier in response to climate change it’s obviously idiotic to allow burning to continue during that period, just on the precautionary principle alone.
The 31st March was seen as a compromise as Conservatives Edward Mountain and Rachael Hamilton wanted burning to be permitted until 30th April whereas Green MSP Ariane Burgess suggested 15th March. There will be powers in the Bill to allow Ministers to review the 31st March cut off date to take account of future research findings.
Given that the majority of muirburn in Scotland currently takes place in April, the grouse shooting industry will not be at all happy with this new restriction. They’ve lobbied hard against it, including taking the newly-appointed Minister Jim Fairlie out to visit a muirburn site at the beginning of the week, but their lobbying influence is clearly not as powerful as they like to suggest it is.
They do have some influence, of course. Bizarrely, Kate Forbes found support amongst the Committee for another, related amendment, which will allow the beginning of the muirburn season to start two weeks earlier (i.e. 15th September as opposed to the current start date of 1st October). There is no justification for this other than to appease the grouse shooters by not shortening the overall muirburn season. In a climate emergency, this is bonkers. It suggests that the Scottish Government thinks that burning the moors to facilitate excessively large numbers of red grouse for a few selfish people to shoot for fun is more important than the global climate crisis. Actually it does more than suggest it – the Scottish Government was clear in its argument against Colin Smyth’s amendment (#143) that it thinks muirburn is acceptable for the sole purpose of maintaining & increasing red grouse so they can be shot for ‘sport’.
Although how much muirburn will actually take place in September remains to be seen – the heather will still be green-ish so won’t burn well and grouse shooting will be well underway so gamekeepers may have limited time to run around lighting fires. Let’s see.
A ‘sort-of’ win came with the acceptance of a change to the definition of ‘peatland’ as being ‘land where the soil has a layer of peat with a thickness of more than 40 centimetres’ (where “peat” means soil which has an organic content of more than 60%). The current definition of peatland in the Muirburn Code is peat with at least 50 centimetres depth, so dropping this down to 40cm is obviously good news as it means a larger area of peatland will now be protected (landowners will not be issued a licence to undertake muirburn for the purpose of grouse moor management where the peat depth is 40cm or greater). Edward Mountain’s amendment to increase the definition of peatland to 60cm peat depth, and Rachael Hamilton’s amendment for it to remain at 50cm, were unsupported. The Bill will also include a provision for Ministers to keep the definition of peatland under review as further research emerges.
The new peatland definition of 40cm peat depth will probably have a significant impact on the management practices of many grouse moors, particularly in Eastern Scotland where new research has shown a widespread disregard by grouse moor managers for the Muirburn Code restriction of burning on peatland with a 50cm depth (see here). The difference going forward will be that if they disregard the new 40cm depth restriction it will lead to the revocation of their muirburn licence. Having a serious consequence like that should encourage behavioural compliance (again, let’s see!).
I’ve described this one as a ‘sort-of’ win because although the change in definition is welcome (and long overdue), it could have gone so much further. The new definition of peatland could have been lowered to 30cm depth in line with the UK Peatland Strategy‘s definition (also followed by many countries internationally). Or, the definition of peatland could have removed the artificial construct of any peat depth altogether, as eloquently argued by Green MSP Ariane Burgess. There’s a very strong argument against using peat depth as a valid definition of peatland, to properly protect all peatland, including critically important shallow peatland, as explained recently in an excellent guest blog (here). However, the Minister didn’t support this approach.
Other amendments that passed during Wednesday’s sessions included a decision that falconers will not need to apply for a licence to hunt red grouse – that seems reasonable given the low number of people engaged in this sport and the lack of associated raptor persecution offences linked to it.
There was also a decision that grouse moor licences should be issued for a five-year period instead of the one-year period originally suggested in the Bill. The grouse shooting industry wanted a ten-year licence but five years was seen as more suitable to provide oversight and review capability by the regulating authority. In essence, the length of the licensing period is pretty inconsequential to us because the most important aspect is that the regulator (NatureScot) will still have the capacity to suspend or revoke a grouse moor management licence at any time during that five period if offences occur.
So, Stage 2 of the Bill is now complete and it moves on to the final Stage 3. This is when further amendments can be lodged and some will be selected (by the Presiding Officer) for a debate by the whole Parliament in the main chamber. Until Stage 3 is complete we won’t know for sure how strong this Bill is but it’s reasonable to think that there won’t be any catastrophic changes given the dominant voting power of the SNP and Greens. A date hasn’t yet been set for the Stage 3 debate but it is anticipated that it’ll take place in March.
After that, the development of the various Codes of Practice designed to support the new legislation will pick up speed and the details of those will take on great significance. A watchful eye will be kept on these to ensure that they are robust and fit for purpose.
Here is a copy of the Bill as amended after Stage 2:
For those who want to watch the archive videos of Wednesday’s two sessions you can find the links here (morning session) and here (evening session).
The transcript from both sessions can be read/downloaded here (starts at page 49):
Raptor Persecution UK 
Vote out the Torries and maybe we can improve upon the cure legislation
Your comment makes no sense because the ‘Torries’ do not hold any Parliamentary power: they are a minority party at Holyrood.
For good or ill, our very own Rachael Hamilton could give Liz Truss a run for our money.
Thank you for doing this excellent summary. It’s looking positive. My only concern is in its implementation and enforcement because those authorities responsible are so overstretched
Hence John Mason’s amendment calling for full cost recovery from licence applicants. The decision was deferred – waiting for NatureScot to complete its review of all species licensing.
This is – overall – very, very good news indeed. I have had extensive communication with the shooting fraternity over a few decades, never pleasant – they must be incandescent with rage.
One issue for discussion another time might be the release of Pheasants and Red-legged Partridges close to roads. They inevitably end up on the tarmac and are killed in huge numbers by traffic. They undoubtedly cause no end of stress to motorists who do their best to avoid them. There must be numerous incidences of drivers crashing their vehicle as they try to avoid flattening one. What a cruel practice on the first instance.
“One issue for discussion another time might be the release of Pheasants and Red-legged Partridges close to roads. They inevitably end up on the tarmac and are killed in huge numbers by traffic…”
Research dated 2017: “Almost 7% of all roadkill on Britain’s roads involve pheasants, and 6% of these led to human deaths or serious injuries….”
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/968315-pheasants-on-britains-roads
Unfortunately, original paper not identified.
I have also experienced pheasant shooters firing their guns next to roads and even firing them while stood on a road. I knew one woman who had a shot pheasant land on her windscreen while she was driving. Very bloody and upsetting. Sorry, this is off topic, I know
Am I right in thinking that two licences will be required…one for muirburn and the other for wildlife slaughter? Both to run for 5 years and both to be managed through codes of practice?
Vicarious liability will remain as one of the weapons against illegal activity. I think I am right in saying there is at least one case where the PF was not able to bring this forward because it was too difficult to identify who should be prosecuted. The licence should require that this information is provided.
My understanding is that there will be three licences:
1. A wildlife trap licence, issued for a period ‘not exceeding ten years’ and the licence applicant must first have completed an approved training course for each specific trap.
2. A grouse moor licence, issued for a period of five years, which licenses the land for the killing and taking of certain birds (currently red grouse). This will be known as a Section 16AA licence (refers to the amended section in the Wildlife & Countryside Act) and it will need to specify the licence holder (typically the owner or occupier of the land) and will also need to identify the area of land to be licenced, including with reference to a map.
3. A muirburn licence, issued for a five year period.
All three licences will be supported by separate Codes of Practice. We don’t yet know the details of these as they can’t really be developed until the Bill has passed Stage 3 but NatureScot is leading on the Codes, supported by working groups comprising representatives from the grouse shooting industry and the conservation sector.
NatureScot will be able to suspend or revoke any of the three licences, at any time, if there is evidence of breaching the associated Code of Practice.
I’ve just added the latest copy of the Bill, as amended after Stage 2.
It’s difficult to keep track of the Bill’s progress but hopefully being able to refer to the most up to date version of the Bill will help!
Thank you Ruth. You are doing an absolutely sterling job, as usual… :-)
I was quite amused by Edward Mountain talking about medicated grit. Fortunately I have seen enough with my own eyes to not fall for the idea that a Siegfried Farnon type character is dispensing a few ounces of it on his apothecary scales to a worried keeper fretting over a few sickly grouse here and there. With aforementioned tut ‘vit-nary popping out to see the suffering birds in a few days to check on the situation. No. It comes on a lorry on wrapped pallets in metric tonne in 20kg bags. It depends upon a lot of determined manpower, infrastructure of roads and tracks, vehicles & fuel…and a level of care and attention that is not monitored at all, outwith the Estate staff / Agent. I personally have never heard of a case where the dispensing vet (employed by or on behalf of the merchant, so not independent!) who has signed it off has gone out onto the fell to check it is being done correctly, but this may happen somewhere I suppose.
I read this session pretty much as
saying to the industry “you can carry on with your medicated grit, carry on with some burning – but we are standing firm on the raptor persecution / illegal wildlife killing.” Quite encouraging so far.