The Scottish Greens MSP Mark Ruskell is the latest politician to lodge parliamentary questions about 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.
A couple of days ago, Minister Jim Fairlie responded to a series of parliamentary questions on this subject, lodged by Colin Smyth MSP (Scottish Labour). The Minister readily acknowledged there were issues with the changes that had been made to the grouse moor licences, but it was quite clear that he didn’t have any immediate plans to address the significant weakening of the licences (see here for his responses).
Now Mark Ruskell MSP from the Scottish Greens has lodged four more parliamentary questions about NatureScot’s behaviour and decision-making:
S6W-34987 Mark Ruskell: To ask the Scottish Government for what reason NatureScot reportedly did not invite each of the groups involved in the development of the Grouse Code of Practice to (a) meetings and (a) engage in consultation with it to discuss grouse licence conditions.
S6W-34988 Mark Ruskell: To ask the Scottish Government how many (a) meetings and (b) other discussions NatureScot and Scottish Land and Estates have held to discuss (i) the legal opinions regarding the wording of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 and (ii) what land should be included in a 16AA licence to shoot grouse.
S6W-34989 Mark Ruskell: To ask the Scottish Government whether NatureScot will release the notes of (a) meetings and (b) any other discussions it has had with Scottish Land and Estates to discuss grouse shoot licensing.
S6W-34990 Mark Ruskell: To ask the Scottish Government what (a) meetings and (b) other discussions took place between ministers and/or its officials with NatureScot in advance of the agency introducing new guidance related to “area of land” and new conditions to 16AA licences; whether these changes were approved and, if so, (i) by whom and (ii) when.
These questions were lodged on 18 February 2025. Responses are due by 4 March 2025.
Raptor Persecution UK 
I fail to see where NatureScot really care. I see some awful plans go through, which affect nature greatly. I read what NatureScot has to say on planning applications, they seem little bothered by how both nature and people will be impacted by some awful proposals. Look at wind farms, filthy plants which spew cancer causing fumes and leach toxins into soil and water courses. These sites are often where birds nest every year, but they don’t listen to us silly little people it seems. I think money is all that matters, at least to the FEW.
windfarms spew cancer and toxins? That would be fossil fuel power stations, at a stretch. Sure, there can be bad places to put windfarms and maybe Nature Scot hadn’t objected robustly to proposals for the wrong sites. But spewing cancer? Just no. Not at all, ever, anywhere.
Your reply on wind farms needs to be backed up evidence, I’m afraid.
Surely the definition of a Licensable Area was included in the Act? If not, the Act was fatally flawed.
The Act specifies that the Licensable Area is defined by the applicant (who is defined as the owner or occupier of the land). I think that makes the Act fatally flawed, in the first instance.
The relevant wording is as follows (I’ve stripped out stuff not related to actually defining the area of land to be licensed, and highlighted the important clauses):
” 10 Licensing: land on which certain birds may be killed or taken
..
“16AA Licensing: 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.
..
(4)An application for a section 16AA licence must—
(a)be made to the relevant authority,
..
(c)specify the area of land to which the licence is to relate,
..
(6)A section 16AA licence—
(a)must—
..
(ii)identify the area of land, by reference to a map, to which the licence relates,
..
(b)may be granted or renewed for a period not exceeding 5 years.“”
I think it is fair to say that anyone could drive a coach and horses through that:-(
There is nothing stated specifically in the Act (as far as I can see) to tie the applicant’s specified ‘area of land’ to an entire moor/estate – which most people seemed to believe was the entire intention of the Scottish Government and Parliament in drawing up this Bill in the first place. Consequently, there is no limit set – within the Act – on the number of applications an ‘owner’ can make (as I could find).
But then there are also other problems regarding which ‘offences’ may or may not be considered in the decision making process….
I’d really like to know who introduced that wording. Was it ‘cock-up’ or conspiracy?
yes Keith, it’s basically a very poorly drafted law and the shooters noticed and took full advantage. Sadly we didn’t.
But at least they have raised this at the outset and not left it to the appeal courts to overturn in 2 or 3,years time. That would have been disastrous not just for Scotland but for any further uk legislation. Whats needed are amendments to the law as drafted. I understood that there were expected opportunities to do so this year but haven’t heard anything further .
Thanks!
I have approached quite a few bodies about this, trying to understand who was responsible for introducing this wording (I really wanted to know whether this was a stupid ‘mistake’ or sabotage).
I have, today, received this enlightening (to me) reply. I wont say who until/unless they give permission. There is – to me (very much on the ‘outside‘) at least – some critically important data included.
“Morning Keith
Thank you for getting in touch with us.
We are fully aware of this situation, and it is now widely accepted that this is an error in drafting of the WWM Act provisions by Scottish Government lawyers. It follows threat of legal challenge by Scottish Land and Estates to NatureScot over their initial grouse shooting licence application process. So far, we understand that about 50 % of licences have been issued by NatureScot to cover the whole estate and 50% to cover the grouse moor only. No licences have been issued to cover smaller areas of land as has been reported mistakenly. There have been multiple conversations with NatureScot and Scottish Government to address this matter and we hope that changes will be made to ensure that what we consider to be the will of Parliament in passing this legislation to provide a meaningful deterrent to the illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors, is implemented in full. You should also understand that the WMM Act is though not only about licensing of grouse shooting, and other good measures have been introduced to licence all muirburn and trapping; to require training for all trapping; to ban snaring; and to give new powers to the Scottish SPCA to investigate and report wildlife crime. The issue to which you are referring should therefore be considered in this wider context.
I hope this response is helpful.”
I found that very helpful. The apparently implied timeline and connection between when the weak wording was introduced and when legal action was threatened is interesting, if accurate. Was there really a connection between the two? Or are the two events independent?
I also appreciate that the rest of the Act is – as I had called it in my communication to them – a watershed moment. We must never lose sight of that.
“Scottish Government lawyers”… One of the bodies I had already approached was the “Scottish Government lawyers”. They have yet to respond. Maybe they wont? But it is all pressure to try and correct a bad situation.
We need to address the ‘types of offence’ issue, too…
Thanks, Keith.
Just for clarity, your mystery correspondent says the following:
“No licences have been issued to cover smaller areas of land as has been reported mistakenly“.
I haven’t seen anyone reporting that licences have been issued to cover smaller areas of land. The reporting that I’ve done on this issue has used the following wording:
‘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‘.
Ongoing work behind the scenes continues on this issue – I can’t blog about that yet but will do when the time is right.
Thank you, Ruth.
I agree 100% with you. I don’t know if somewhere else that claim has been made, or whether it is just some loose wording from my correspondent.
However, as you say, with the wording of the Act as it is, there is nothing to stop a landowner/occupier from applying for a licence to cover just the shotgun range from a line of butts… So the wording is dangerous, and clearly not what the Scottish Parliament wanted.
But I am someone encouraged to hear that no such ‘mini’ licences have actually been applied for and/or granted (so far), because I could foresee that they would require legislation to legally revoke… Or else, we’d be stuck with them for the next five years:-( I had mentioned that ‘issue’ in my letter, which may have prompted the reply/clarification?
Whether ‘single grouse moor’ licences – rather than entire estates – pose a ‘similar’ problem remains to be seen (the geography of each estate comes into play… and the honesty of the applicant:-( I can imagine “We shoot on this moor until we may lose our licence, and then we can apply for / use the licence for the next moor” applying to large(r) estates.
Again, not what the Scottish Parliament intended, I think.