The Scottish Government’s Minister for Agriculture & Connectivity, Jim Fairlie MSP, has responded to a series of parliamentary questions lodged earlier this month by Colin Smyth MSP (Scottish Labour) on the grouse moor licensing shambles in Scotland.
As a recap, regular blog readers will know that NatureScot made a sudden and controversial 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.
See previous blogs here, here, here, here, and here for background details.
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. The licence was further weakened by NatureScot reducing the number of offences outside the licensable area that could trigger a licence revocation.
Freedom of Information responses later revealed that NatureScot had capitulated on grouse moor licensing after receiving legal threats from the grouse shooting industry. Secret and extensive negotiations then took place between NatureScot and a number of grouse shooting organisations, excluding all other stakeholders. NatureScot refused to release the legal advice it had received and on which it had apparently based its changes to the licence.
Here are the answers given by Minister Fairlie yesterday to Colin Smyth’s four parliamentary questions about this fiasco:
This is an interesting response about NatureScot’s continued refusal to release the legal advice it received about making changes to the grouse moor licences.
For interest, I have recently submitted a request for an Internal Review of NatureScot’s FoI response in December, where it refused to release the legal advice it had received. I don’t believe NatureScot’s decision was lawful so I’m seeking further clarification on its decision making. Depending on NatureScot’s response to the Internal Review request, I may escalate this to the Information Commissioner if my suspicions of unlawful behaviour are founded.
The second paragraph of the Minister’s response ignores totally the criticisms about NatureScot’s new licence condition. I.e. that (a) it is practically unenforceable, and (b) that it reduces the number of offences outside the licensable area that could trigger a licence revocation.
The Minister’s last sentence, “We are considering whether any further steps need to be taken to address this issue” is a simple non-committal to doing anything about the flawed new condition.
It reflects poorly on the Scottish Government but if the Government isn’t intending to address the issue itself, then there are other routes that other, more engaged politicians can take to address it. More on that to come.
Hmm. I’m not sure that Colin’s question was referring to NatureScot seeking approval from Police Scotland, but rather approval from the Scottish Government, although the wording of the parliamentary question isn’t as clear as perhaps it could have been.
Either way, it is my understanding that Police Scotland did not support the proposed new licence condition because it recognised that it was practically unenforceable. NatureScot appears to have ignored this expert advice.
It’s good that the Minister openly admits that raptor persecution can take place anywhere on a property and not just on the actual grouse moor.
However, the repeated statement about NatureScot’s new (and flawed and unenforceable) licence condition is pointless. Again, it reflects poorly on the Scottish Government but if the Government isn’t intending to address the issue itself, then there are other routes that other, more engaged politicians can take to address it. More on that to come.
Some more parliamentary questions have now been lodged to dig further in to NatureScot’s behaviour and decision-making in relation to the changes it made to the new grouse moor licences. I’ll blog shortly.
UPDATE 28 February 2025: More Parliamentary questions on grouse moor licensing shambles in Scotland (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
Thanks for the update.
Does it mean that if a licence applied to just the area around shooting butts were revoked, that the estate could then just move the butts and carry on regardless ?
I believe so:-( But there has been no case to set an example, so far….
I didn’t mention in my comment that I appreciate that if they were just to move the butts after having a licence revoked, that they would have to apply for another licence to cover the new butts which may not be granted if they’d had a licence revoked on the estate. However, on the other hand a new licence may well be issued based on the shooting industry getting their own way. I can’t see licensing eradicating persecution but the GPS location of tags to pinpoint any last movements of a bird or last location a tag has transmitted will be crucial to the cause. i.e if it were to be over / on a licensed shooting estate …but you probably already knew what I’ve just said, sorry.
“I didn’t mention in my comment that I appreciate that if they were just to move the butts after having a licence revoked, that they would have to apply for another licence to cover the new butts which may not be granted if they’d had a licence revoked on the estate.”
Yes, I think that is possible. We won’t really know until there has been a test case or two… or whether NatureScot will/can legally revoke a licence for an ‘offence’ not committed directly within the licensed area in question, but on the same moor/estate (for example).
It is possible (as far as I can tell) for the applicant (defined in the legislation as the owner or occupier of the area of land) to hold multiple licences (there is no limit set), all covering areas legally defined by the applicant (alone!). We don’t know – until there has been some test cases – whether NatureScot would/could legally revoke ALL such licences for a single ‘offence’ (for example) which has taken place outside of all of them, but on the same moor/estate?
We also don’t know whether some Appeal Court might consider such action by NatureScot as being ‘unreasonable’, or ‘exceeding its reach’… being outside of any of its licensed areas, even though it is all supposed to be based on the civil law principle of ‘the balance of probabilities’?
It seems to me to be such an almighty mess when the legislation could, and should, have been made absolutely clear-cut! Maybe I am/we are being pessimistic?
However, I don’t think the Scottish Parliament wanted it like this: I think they just ‘messed up’. Quite how much remains to be seen:-{
I wasn’t aware that they could potentially hold multiple licences, I hadn’t even considered it. You’ve made good points to my comment, thanks.
I meant to say ‘you’ve made good / helpful points to my comments, thanks.
To keep our hopes up…
I have written to quite a few ‘organisations’ trying to express my understanding of the ‘weakness’ in this legislation (and a suggested ‘fix’).
One has just replied – I won’t say who because I want to reproduce what was said (and I haven’t asked if they want it published) but it doesn’t implicate anyone, just offers hope…
“Your analysis is spot on and apparently shared by the Scottish Government who say they will amend the legislation. It’s believed this will be done via the Land Reform Bill which is currently at Committee stage. We’re keeping an eye on it, as are RSPB Scotland who are monitoring it closely. Having met the Cabinet Secretary and spoke about this I’m confident they will want to sort this to reflect the will of Parliament.”
I don’t think that is contentious, and is comforting to know.
I am pleased that Colin Smyth is pursuing the SNP government over this. He is a great MSP. Sadly they remain tartan Tories unwilling to upset their moneyed friends
I’m wondering if there are other parts of our legal system where potential criminals have managed to reduce their chance of being caught by negotiating like this.
Surely non-offending estates have nothing to fear so the estates complaining must be the ones considering illegal activities!!
Well said Ian and thanks for the update but it’s needs to be acknowledged persecution not just on grouse moor but any persecution on an estate should be illegal and licenses revoked Zero tolerance.
I wonder about the possibility of reaction to raptor persecution on nearby land owned by others and not used for shooting.
Unless things are turned around quite dramatically when they are done with their ‘considering’ re: “We are considering whether any further steps need to be taken to address this issue” then I can’t help but feel cheated by the words of Jim Fairlie at the conclusion of the vote. What he said then chimed with my own position, but it doesn’t seem now like he could have really meant it at all. The other week I signed the “ban DGS” petition (first time I’ve ever done that) without much hesitation, as there now seems no alternative will be possible short of a total ban in order to stop the killing.