Regular blog readers will know that I’ve been trying to uncover the reasoning and process behind NatureScot’s sudden decision last autumn to change its approach and amend the brand new grouse moor licences that had been issued to sporting estates in Scotland under the new Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024.
The changes made by NatureScot significantly weakened the licence by changing the extent of the licensable area from covering an entire estate to just the parts of the estate where red grouse are ‘taken or killed’, which on a driven grouse moor could effectively just mean a small area around a line of grouse butts.
NatureScot also added a new licence condition that it claimed would allow a licence revocation if raptor persecution crimes took place outside of the licensable area, but many of us believe this to be virtually unenforceable.
This new condition also means that all the other offences listed in the Wildlife Management & Muirburn Act that are supposed to trigger a licence revocation (i.e. offences on the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994, Animal Health & Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023) are NOT covered by the new licence condition. The new condition ONLY applies to raptor persecution offences (see previous blogs here, here, here, here, and here for background details).
As I blogged on 18 December 2024, NatureScot was clearly playing for time by stalling on releasing overdue FoI documents that I had asked for to try to find out what was behind the complete mess grouse shoot licensing has become.
Finally, on 19 December 2024, by sheer coincidence, I’m sure, NatureScot provided a response, amounting to 162 pages of internal and external email correspondence between July and October 2024, relating specifically to the changes made to grouse licence conditions.
Here is the cover letter sent to me by NatureScot, explaining what information was being released and what was being withheld
And here is the substantial correspondence that NatureScot had with representatives of the grouse shooting industry prior to NatureScot making changes to the licence:
It’s a lot to take in, and as you can imagine, it’s taken a while for me and my colleagues to digest the contents. To be frank, there’s nothing in the material released that we didn’t know or suspect had probably gone on, but the detail is very enlightening.
It’s very clear that the level of engagement between NatureScot and Scottish Land and Estates (SLE, the lobby organisation for grouse moor owners in Scotland) was truly staggering. SLE (and latterly, BASC) were granted at least eight exclusive meetings with NatureScot staff between 15 July and early October to discuss the grouse licensing issue, without a word to any other stakeholders that this issue was being discussed.
No notes of these meetings, or any of the many phone calls between SLE and BASC and NatureScot staff, has been provided in the FoI response.
Also missing from the FoI response is the legal advice that NatureScot received about making changes to the grouse licence, despite it being clearly critical to NatureScot’s decision making.
However, on the back of that legal advice, it is clear that SLE and BASC were given exclusive previews by NatureScot of proposed changes to the licence to agree before they were implemented.
From the perspective of those of us who campaigned long and hard for a robust system of grouse moor licensing, and engaged diligently with the process of the Wildlife Management Bill as it progressed through Parliament and the subsequent meetings to determine the accompanying codes of practice, I’m not sure how this fits into NatureScot’s oft-repeated claim to seek “openness and transparency”.
The policy intent of the legislation, part of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Act, which was overwhelmingly passed by the Scottish Parliament, was crystal clear – “to address the on-going issue of wildlife crime, and in particular the persecution of raptors, on managed grouse moors. It will do this by enabling a licence to be modified, suspended or revoked, where there is robust evidence of raptor persecution or another relevant wildlife crime related to grouse moor management such as the unlicenced killing of a wild mammal, or the unlawful use of a trap”.
Given the amount of evidence that SLE was invited to give during the Committee stages of the Bill’s progression, including representations by their legal representative, one wonders why SLE didn’t question the interpretation of the draft legislation defining land to be covered by a licence at that stage?
SLE certainly raised questions and objections about many other aspects of the legislation during that process but maybe didn’t want the kind of public debate in front of MSPs that raising this issue at that time would have led to?
Instead, the land management sector, and in particular SLE, pursued an extraordinary level of behind-the-scenes access to NatureScot staff after the legislation had been agreed through the democratic process, who in turn bent over backwards to accommodate all their demands, simply to head off the threat of legal action over interpretation of the new grouse licensing legislation, specifically how much of an estate should be covered by a licence.
At this point, it’s legitimate to question SLE’s motives for trying to limit the amount of an estate that is licensed. Surely, if an estate’s employees aren’t committing wildlife crime, the extent of the licence shouldn’t actually matter?
Anyway, it’s clear that discussions with SLE about a “legal issue” began in early July 2024, shortly after the period for grouse shooting applications had opened. It’s also apparent that shooting representative organisations were already advising their members via social media to delay submitting applications until the issue that “relates to the area of land to which the licence relates” was resolved.
The FoI documents show that RSPB picked up on this and emailed NatureScot on 18 July 2024 asking for details. The response from NatureScot, sent the following day, appears to be reassuring, stating:
“We are clear that licences we issue should relate to the full landholding and not just land over which grouse are taken and killed, because as you well know, raptor persecution undertaken in connection with grouse moor management could take place anywhere on a property, not just on the grouse moor itself”.
I, and I’m sure most readers of this blog, completely agree with this sentiment. We all know of many, many cases of raptors killed by gamekeepers on grouse shooting estates in places well away from where actual grouse shooting occurs – in woodlands, at nests on crags, in adjoining farmland. I don’t doubt that the majority of MSPs who passed the legislation would also have shared this view. Indeed, why would anyone who genuinely wishes to see raptor persecution addressed not agree?
However, we now know that NatureScot went from saying they were comfortable that the process in place was robust (on 16 July) to bending over backwards to accommodate every suggestion SLE made about new conditions, despite recognising early on that the “policy intent” of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Act might not be realised if areas covered by licences were too small.
Interestingly, the document also shows that NatureScot’s internally-agreed line of communications (from 19 July 2024) would be that they were “working closely with stakeholders to develop a workable licensing scheme for grouse shooting that supports those who manage their grouse moors within the law and acts as a strong deterrent to raptor persecution”.
Really? This has proven to be completely misleading and disingenuous at best. In reality it’s clear that the only organisations NatureScot was working closely with were SLE and BASC, even giving them advance notice of proposed new licence conditions for their comments and approval.
In contrast, there is no correspondence with the police or NWCU to ask their opinion on the proposed new conditions and their enforceability, or any hint of wider discussion or consultation with any other organisation, despite other’s involvement in giving evidence to Parliament or contributing to the Grouse Code of Practice.
Instead, there has been a concerted effort to placate representatives from the industry responsible for the illegal slaughter of huge numbers of raptors and other protected species, resulting in a significant number of investigations and prosecutions, just to head off legal threats. The rest of the world only became aware of these changes to the licences when it was all cut and dried, a done deal, published on NatureSot’s website.
As I have written before, not only is the area to be covered by a licence down to the whims of the licence applicant, whatever the non-legally binding expectations of the licensing authority that it would include the whole grouse moor, but a new condition that I and many others believe to be unenforceable has been added.
A stinging, but apparently unanswered, email sent from the RSPB to NatureScot on 10 October 2024 sums it up:
“This new ‘wildlife crime licensing condition’ will apply outside of the licensed area of a landholding but only where offences committed are related to management of the grouse moor. In a scenario where a buzzard is found dying in an illegally-set pole trap on a sporting estate, 2km away from the licensed grouse moor, we question what evidence will be required, and how it will be obtained, to allow an assessment if that crime was linked to grouse moor management, particularly if it was an estate that also had pheasant shooting?
“In summary, we believe that this new condition means that establishing a link between raptor persecution offences and grouse moor management, and to act as a meaningful deterrent to wildlife crimes, will now require a burden of proof that will be virtually impossible to achieve”.
So much for these licences being a deterrent to raptor persecution! We also now know that NatureScot didn’t undertake a single measure of compliance monitoring or checks on the use of the 250 licences it issued for the 2024 grouse shooting season (see here).
It’s becoming increasingly apparent that a culture of appeasement to the land management sector has become embedded in NatureScot. I’ll have a lot more to say about this over the coming weeks, (there is an ongoing related issue that has so many similarities but I can’t write about it yet, pending legal advice) but there is a growing sense of unease amongst conservationists with regard to decisions being taken by an organisation that should be leading on protecting Scotland’s wildlife.
In the meantime, concerned blog readers may feel moved to write (politely) to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Agriculture & Connectivity, Jim Fairlie MSP, (email: MinisterforAC@gov.scot) to ask him what he intends to do to fix the huge loophole that NatureScot has created in the first Bill he led on in Government.
I’ll be very interested in the responses you get.
You might also increasingly be thinking that licensing grouse shooting just isn’t going to work, and the whole thing should just be banned. If so, please sign this petition.
Raptor Persecution UK 
You do an amazing job and your resilience is an inspiration.
Given all this, and the comments and from the concerned individuals at the RSPB, I cannot fathom how or why the RSPB still believe that licencing is the way forward for grouse moors.
I have emailed and received a reply, which in the face of the evidence leaves me baffled, and can’t help but think that if only the RSPB could get behind the petition, 50,000 of it’s members would get it over the line.
Thank you for all you do.
I, like you, cannot believe why the RSPB is pushing licensing rather than an outright ban. Maybe the shooting industry has sympathisers at the top of the RSPB.
I have supported the petition brought by Wild Justice but even if it is debated in Westminster the banning of driven grouse shooting has zero chance of becoming law.
what a disaster thank you for keeping us updated
Brilliant work and analysis again Ruth. Judging by the cosiness of the relationship between NatureScot and the shooting groups, I’m just wondering how many of the former worked for the latter and vice versa? Yet again this shows how environmental regulators and crime bodies have been captured by the establishment who can then get away with whatever they want as usual whether that’s raptor persecution, fox hunting or whatever. Instead of enforcing regulations the majority of the population want, NatureScot just keep the privileged minority happy. Grrrr
If SNH was determined to be bloody minded about the release of information which might be embarassing it would only issue the bare minimum. You asked for “correspondence”, they gave you “correspondence”.
Where are the reports, meeting notes(even hand written) or minutes?
It is frankly unbelievable that Scottish Ministers (the officials in Scottish Government) were not fully briefed on the developing proposals. Were there unminuted meetings and phone calls? (Did SLE have any meetings with SG officials or Ministers without SNH?)
If it is the policy of SNH and Scottish Government to operate without a documented paper trail then this a very significant problem which would merit wider scrutiny.
“If SNH was determined to be bloody minded…”
“Did SLE have any meetings with SG officials or Ministers without SNH?”
“If it is the policy of SNH and Scottish Government…”
SNH hasn’t existed since May 2020.
Can we expect any responses from MSPs at this stage, or is this not an appropriate time?
Thanks again Ruth for this epic expose of what goes on behind the scenes in this, and presumably in pretty much every other case. Your dogged determination has enabled us to glimpse exactly what goes on and confirms what we otherwise would only have suspected. NatureScot really are appalling and corrupt in these instances .
What you have reported is outrageous. The will of the Scottish Parliament is being deliberately undermined.
Have signed the petition (ages ago) and have written to Mr Fairlie. I have also completely changed my mind on the benefits of licencing grouse moors.
“What you have reported is outrageous. The will of the Scottish Parliament is being deliberately undermined.”
Yes, I agree. But, more than that, it is being deliberately undermined by NatureScot – and that is a scandal.
The failure to consult any other stakeholders over such dramatic changes to licensing is evidence enough of that.
NS seem to be as equally craven to the Grouse Bothers as NE down South!!
NATURE scot has been totally bamboozled by the minority. Am shocked as to what is going on. Licensing is not the answer. A full ban is required.
Totally agree, Alan. With everyone else, too.
We at Animal Interfaith Alliance wrote to the RSPB asking them to adopt a pro-ban stance and use their influence to bump up signatures for your petition.
They reiterated their support for licensing – which seems to me to be a sop to those of their members who are shooters. I lived in rural Wales for years and knew quite a few of those who supported the RSPB.
This weakening of the licensing in Scotland by NS surely cannot be helping the RSPB in their stance.
“NATURE scot has been totally bamboozled by the minority”
I disagree: bamboozle means to trick. NatureScot have NOT been ‘tricked’: they knew full-well that what they were agreeing to would undermine the purpose of the Act, because the RSPB told them so…
“In summary, we believe that this new condition means that establishing a link between raptor persecution offences and grouse moor management, and to act as a meaningful deterrent to wildlife crimes, will now require a burden of proof that will be virtually impossible to achieve”.
As always Ruth this is excellent work on your part. I was going to say it’s shocking, but sadly I’m not sure it is. It is appalling that a public body would behave like this though. I’m not surprised they are acting like they’ve been caught with their fingers in the till.
NatureScot haven’t just bent over backwards, they have bent over forwards. Perhaps they were in that position throughout (and even prior to) the whole Bill process – before and during all the committees, through all the debates, all the evidence gathering and the speeches and the voting, etc, etc.
I’m not entirely surprised at this whole turn of events, but still disappointed. And very curious as to what Jim Fairlie’s position actually is. I genuinely believed his words in the closing speech at the vote and agreed with them myself, as that is (was?) my own position too – i.e. force out the bad through regulation, allow the good to thrive.
But with this fait accompli in place, that ain’t going to happen now…
It beggars belief that NatureScot can decide to subvert legislation passed by the Scottish Government lawfully. I wonder whether an application for Judicial Review could be submitted in relation to this? It is clear that there has been lobbying by the groups who want to maintain their interests in blood sports (or blood lust). Nature Scot has been “got at” by foul means which are being covered up. I think NatureScot has engaged in Misconduct in Public Office which is a criminal offence. This needs to be tackled by all means available.
“I wonder whether an application for Judicial Review could be submitted in relation to this?”
Has NatureScot broken any law? If so, which law?
“I think NatureScot has engaged in Misconduct in Public Office which is a criminal offence”
Does NatureScot not have the legal power to do what it did?
Really, at the moment, it seems to me that the best course of action will be through the Scottish Parliament. I feel sure that a lot of MSPs will be absolutely furious about NatureScot’s behaviour. I will be extremely disappointed if there are no serious ramifications over this travesty. Maybe, expect a lot of buck-passing?
I’m also sure that the Police will not be pleased, either.
I dare say that the RSPB, the SSPCA, the Green Party, the Labour Party and the SNP will, in due course, develop their response. I’m not sure if the Scottish Lib Dems care? I hope they prove me wrong.
And if this cannot be legally sorted out by the body which helps MSPs (and Governments) to draft legislation to make it water-tight (big, BIG, failure, there!) then the next move will be for a complete ban.
Time for MSPs to shape up, I think.
Let’s hope that this mess is sorted out before licensing is introduced in England.
This is not the way we have traditionally done business in central Government in the UK. Holding meetings to discuss legislation without a record of the discussion is simply unacceptable – as is failing to reply to a stakeholder (RSPB) as significant as the ones avidly engaged. This is more serious than raptor persecution alone – it is yet another instance of our eroding democratic processes. Nature Scot cannot claim any ‘arms length’ exemption when it is discussing national legislation.
Roderick – I’m afraid this is exactly what happened in the run up to the implementation of the International Agreement on Humane Trapping Standards.
The UK Government had repeatedly stated that it would meet the internationally agreed deadline for introducing more humane stoat traps by July 2016. Lethal laboratory tests had already been conducted on stoats and DOC spring traps were already available so everything seemed ready for action. That was the case until shortly after a meeting held in December 2015 with the then Defra Minister and representatives from shooting representatives and gamekeeping organisations. Subsequent to that meeting Teresa Dent (in her role as a representative of Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT)) chaired a meeting between senior UK government officials (including Scottish government officials), APHA and approximately 20 gamekeeping, ‘pest’ control, farming, shooting organisations, landowners representatives and manufacturers on 29 January 2016. No animal rights or animal welfare groups were invited to the meeting or any similar types of meetings involving very senior Defra officials. That meeting of 29 January 2016 was supposedly minuted by the GWCT but, according to numerous FOI requests I made, those minutes were never recorded or distributed to government officials in any form and no government official made any notes, nor were any papers distributed before or after the meeting so there are no FOI accessible records whatsoever. Following the meeting, Defra officials and GWCT drafted new implementation proposals and UK goals and stsndards for the types of traps to be approved under the AIHTS. As a result of the ridiculous (and as it turned out completely unachievable) goals set by these representative bodies and Defra for any UK traps to meet, the AIHTS was not implemented iirc for a further 2 years to allow further research etc etc. In the end the very DOC traps which were available in 2015 were approved for use under the new Humane Trapping Standards in iirc 2018.
So – there is previous form for secrecy by government officials when dealing with legislation that impacts the activities of shooting estates and previous form with not involving animal welfare or animal rights groups in those discussions.
“So – there is previous form for secrecy by government officials when dealing with legislation that impacts the activities of shooting estates and previous form with not involving animal welfare or animal rights groups in those discussions.”
I suspect something long rotten within the Departmental Civil Service…
This looks like a straightforward case of corruption.
This outcome, taken together with the issue of the xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx, should serve as a wake up call to those who have put their faith in Parliamentary process and state bodies to effect meaningful change.
Time for a fundamental rethink.
[Ed: Thanks. I’ve deleted the section about the other issue because I’m not ready to publicise it yet…lots going on in the background and it’ll be publicised in due course. You’re absolutely right though, it is indeed a wake up call].
“should serve as a wake up call to those who have put their faith in Parliamentary process and state bodies to effect meaningful change.”
And just what alternative are you suggesting?
[Ed: Keith, your comments often come across as being very aggressive towards others. Perhaps you don’t mean to, perhaps you do, I don’t know. Whatever it is, you’re going to need a find a way to tone it down, please. Some are finding your aggression too intimidating and don’t want to comment for fear of a backlash from you. That’s not an environment I want to host on here. Thanks]
“[Ed: Keith, your comments often come across as being very aggressive towards others….”
Please explain how are we going to “effect meaningful change” without going through and “putting faith in Parliamentary or state bodies”?
People will venture to explain their thoughts on this to you more readily without the prospect of being decapitated by a cutting reply. I’m not sure exactly what the OP has in mind, but I myself – being (like us all) thoroughly pissed off at yet another good old British Establishment stitch up – often contemplate different models and potential tactics of a Kinder Scout type of mass action . Coordinated, either high profile in a “one-er” or a discreet surge of responsible wildlife lovers regularly, consistently and indefinitely onto the first Estate in Scotland that is caught but evades penalty because of this sham legislation. This is only an idea, a very rough one – perhaps it is shit. Criticism of it is welcome but not a blunt attempt to terminate it at conception. Not so much for my sake but for the fact it might discourage the next person, with a genuinely great idea, from giving it an airing on here.
I’ve got nothing against direct action – I have a long record – but that still requires Parliament to change the law (ie for us to put faith in Parliamentary process and state bodies to effect meaningful change).
It is just the way we get Parliament to do it.
After all, Wild Justice are, this minute, petitioning a Parliament to do just that. Why do that if nobody on this blog actually believes that Parliament – no matter what – will ever in anybodies lifetime “effect meaningful change”?
Does that mean we are all just wasting our time? Parliament will never do it? Some other yet-to-be-invented ‘thing’ will have to do it, instead?
I fail to see why defending Parliamentary processes raises such ire.
Why did we support the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023? Have snares been banned?
I have already posted about where I think the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 failed: it was in the body charged with making the wording watertight. (MSPs do not do that job, although they ‘approve’ the wording upon ‘advice’.) It appears to have failed spectacularly (note, no legal case has ever been heard to rule on whether the shooting industries’ claims about the wording should be upheld. NatureScot just capitulated without a fight AFAIK).
It is up to MSPs to now put that right (if they wish to do so – we may have a view on that.) They, alone, have the means to do so. And that means we have to continue to pursue our ‘faith in the Parliamentary process to effect meaningful change’, until it does.
The way we press that case depends entirely upon developments, but we have no choice other than to get Parliament to change the law in the way its original proponents envisaged.
(By all accounts, what NatureScot have done is set the whole process concerning raptor persecution on grouse moors back…)
I’ve no problem with that reply Keith, plenty of good points there to mull on.
My main point was actually to highlight the way you often reply to people who are genuinely just “thinking aloud” (which I like) – pole-axing them with a short, challenging reply that doesn’t invite further thought or a friendly exchange. This to me is a great waste as you have more of value to give (such as you did above) and they probably do too.
The pole-axing should however be retained for use on those occasional idle-apologist troll types who think they are “defending the countryside” by repeating some bullish / bullshit statement that they have picked up from watching a YT channel while half cut, concerning things they are too lazy to look into for themselves 😄
Nicely put Mr Morose. I had to hold myself back towards the beginning of this thread from jumping in to challenge Keith’s tone. Sometimes we all need to wind our neck in and not just knee jerk.
From my understanding of reading what’s been posted I think the first call for action should be a parliamentary enquiry into exactly what has taken place between NatureScot and representatives of the grouse shooting industry. From the way I am reading this post and the various comments, it could be interpreted that NatureScot has colluded with the game shooting industry possibly to mitigate the effects that the new legislation could potentially have on the grouse shooting industry in Scotland. If this is the case, then it’s a very serious matter and something which may require a full judicial enquiry, as such behaviour could have grave consequences for public confidence in the parliamentary process of passing and implementing legislation.
Perhaps the readers of this blog living in Scotland could write to their MSPs expressing concern about Ruth’s finding?
I would also like to thank Ruth for exposing what has taken place. Without such dedication, diligence and hard work, I doubt that what has taken place would ever have reached the public domain and no one would have asked the questions now being raised.
I decided to examine the primary legislation to try and understand just how we have ended up in the current mess (concerning raptor persecution and the licensing of grouse moors).
It is a tedious task, partly because I am not familiar with the layout/structure of the Act, or what, exactly, I was looking for… it is not a small document, and it refers to other legislation – without including it – constantly.
I had already downloaded a flattened copy of the Act, so began searching…. What shocked me was that within about five minutes I found what I think is a/the gaping hole in the written legislation, although I did obviously know I was looking for something to do with licensing.
This (I think) is the offending section (10) on licensing. I have highlighted what I think are the offending linked clauses:
10Licensing: land on which certain birds may be killed or taken
(1)The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2)After section 16 insert—
“16AALicensing: land on which certain birds may be killed or taken
(1)The relevant authority may, on the application of an owner or occupier of an area of land, grant a licence for the purposes of permitting the killing or taking of any type of bird included in Part 1B of Schedule 2 on the land (a “section 16AA licence”), if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.
(2)In determining whether it is appropriate to grant a section 16AA licence the relevant authority must have regard in particular to the applicant’s compliance with a code of practice made in accordance with section 16AC.
(3)Where the relevant authority refuses to grant a licence to an applicant, the relevant authority must give written notice to the applicant of the reasons for doing so.
(4)An application for a section 16AA licence must—
(a)be made to the relevant authority,
(b)be made in such manner and form as the relevant authority may require,
(c)specify the area of land to which the licence is to relate,
(d)contain or be accompanied by such information as the relevant authority may require, and
(e)be accompanied by payment of such reasonable fee as the relevant authority may require.
(5)The relevant authority must publicise any requirements which are for the time being set under subsection (4)(b) to (e).
(6)A section 16AA licence—
(a)must—
(i)specify the person to whom the licence is granted (“the licence holder”),
(ii)identify the area of land, by reference to a map, to which the licence relates,
(iii)specify any reasonable conditions the relevant authority considers appropriate to attach to the licence, and
(b)may be granted or renewed for a period not exceeding 5 years.“
This Act therefore insists that the applicant (alone) specifies the area of land to be licensed, and the licence must reflect that. Worse, it then grants that licence for up to five years.
The Act does not limit how many licences an applicant may have.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2024/4/section/10/enacted claim the above wording is the original version (as it was originally enacted).
I cannot, therefore, see how NatureScot (the relevant authority, mentioned above) can do anything about that? The law is the law, and an ‘area of land’ is ‘an area of land’. The Act does not define what ‘an area of land’ is (ie it does not state that ‘an area of land’ must be a complete shooting estate, or an entire moor).
Yet, the Scottish Government’s Wildlife Management Unit have written (4th December 2024): “I understand that NatureScot have recently made changes to the area, making it up to the person applying for the licence to specify the area to which the licence relates”
That looks like a gross misrepresentation, to me. Look at the original legislation.
In the same correspondence, the Scottish Government’s Wildlife Management Unit write: “Scottish Ministers expect the licenced areas (note: plural – careful manipulation of meaning, there) to cover the full extent of the grouse moor…”
Yes, they might.. in total, but the individual licence does not, necessarily. Look at the original legislation.
Who, exactly, introduced (Section 10) (2) 16AALicensing: land on which certain birds may be killed or taken’ (sub-section 4 (c)), which allows the applicant (alone) to specify the area to be licensed?
Was it a Government sponsor of the Act: the team of Ministers and Civil Servants who formulate policy, or the team of administrators and solicitors who develop detail?
Or, was it the Parliamentary Counsel Office? “The Parliamentary Counsel Office has been drafting Acts of the Scottish Parliament for over 15 years and we always strive to draft clear, effective, accessible law which can be easily understood by everyone affected by it. Andy Beattie, Chief Parliamentary Counsel”
Did any of the drafting experts in this process act as a Devil’s Advocate to point out possible loopholes and weaknesses? Do they ever do that, especially when considering the drafting of possibly contentious legislation? Are they any good at it?
When the Bill was examined in Committee, line by line, was this ‘loophole’ (section (10)(2)(4)(c)) ever discussed?
Were all MSPs fully aware that the applicant (alone) decided which areas to license, with no limit on the number of licenses an applicant could hold, when they voted on this Bill?
There are so many questions…
The Muirburn regulations follow a similar process where the applicant identifies the area. It does not have to be the same area as the shooting license.
It is easy, I suggest, to fix this loophole: limit each applicant to just the one licence. But, that is for the future: the problem is that up to five-year, potentially very weak, licences have already been dished out.
And if what I have written is correct, then I have to happily withdraw my previous criticism of NatureScot (notwithstanding that I haven’t read all the FOI correspondence) because the problem appears to lay entirely within the original Act, as passed.
[Ed: Thanks, Keith. It’s widely acknowledged that the legislation was poorly drafted. The issue with NatureScot is its secret backroom dealing with the grouse shooting reps without informing any of the other stakeholders or providing them with an opportunity to contribute to discussions]
it appears to me this is a clear case of corruption, the environmental protection agency actively undermining a decision taken in the parliament by making private exclusive talks with only one side of the affected groups is the kind of thing I would expect from a business board not an agency who’s duty is to defend our wildlife, specially when that means them going out of their way to make sure persecution still happens in the easiest way possible. I don’t want to speculate but I wouldn’t be to shocked to discover that a fair bit of natscot’s higher ups like to show their shooting skills once in a while xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx