BREAKING NEWS:
The Scottish Government has committed to closing the loophole on the grouse moor licences that were sabotaged last year by the powerful grouse shooting lobby.
If you recall, grouse moor licensing was introduced as part of the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, as a result of the continued illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors and the associated difficulties of identifying an individual suspect and prosecuting them.
The idea was that a licence to shoot Red Grouse could be amended / withdrawn / revoked by NatureScot if evidence showed that illegal raptor persecution had taken place (importantly, based on the civil burden of proof, i.e. balance of probability, rather than the criminal burden of proof, i.e. beyond reasonable doubt). It was expected that the licence would cover an estate’s entire landholding, not just the areas where Red Grouse are shot, because raptor persecution crimes often take place beyond the boundary of the moor (e.g. in woodland).
However, last November, the licences were significantly weakened after legal threats from the grouse shooting industry. Instead of now covering an entire estate, it was announced that the licence holder could decide on the extent of the area the licence covered, specifically the area where Red Grouse are ‘taken or killed’.
Effectively, this could mean simply drawing an arbitrary line around their grouse butts, denoting the reach of a shotgun pellet, and argue that THAT is the area where they take/kill grouse and thus that should be the extent of the licensable area:
There has been a year of prolonged campaigning to get this loophole closed, led by Green MSP Mark Ruskell and RSPB Scotland, and this work has now paid off.
In a letter to the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs & Islands Committee (the committee scrutinising the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill), published today, Agriculture Minister Jim Fairlie has committed to introducing an amendment at Stage 2 of the Bill to close off this loophole.
Here’s his letter:
We haven’t yet seen the details of Mr Fairlie’s proposed amendment but the deadline for MSPs to submit amendments at Stage 2 closes on 13 November 2025, so we shouldn’t have long to wait.
There’s more to say about this welcome move, and all the hard work that has gone on behind the scenes to reach this stage. I’ll be blogging more about this and I’ll also be discussing it at this weekend’s REVIVE conference in Perth (tickets still available – here).
For now, I see this as very, very good news.
UPDATE 4 November 2025: Statement from RSPB Scotland Director on proposed amendment to close grouse moor licence loophole (here)
UPDATE 14 November 2025: Scottish Minister Jim Fairlie provides rationale behind proposed amendment to close loophole on grouse shoot licence (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
im sure that Jim Fairlie will manage to ensure that there are many loopholes in the amendment, in order that the industry need have no fear that there will be any successful prosecutions.
Is he typical of all the SNP Ministers. I’m concerned that they are similar to NatureScot in that regard.
Following this thing from the start has been quite a rollercoaster ride to me. I am obviously very pleasantly surprised that an amendment is being looked at, but also confess that I am now at a loss to understand the whole thing – whether it is genuinely intended legislation after all, or still potentially part of a sham 🤔
Jim Fairlie’s email to the Convener of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee states:
“Natural Environment Bill: grouse moor licensing schemes
As the Committee are aware, the original policy intention for the grouse licensing scheme was that licences could be suspended or revoked if NatureScot were satisfied that the licence holder (or a person involved in the management of the grouse moor) had committed a ‘relevant offence’ in connection with the management of the grouse moor…
The purpose of my proposed amendment is to enable the licensing scheme to operate as originally intended, ensuring that it provides a meaningful deterrent.”
That seems good to me: in plain English it relates the licence to the management of the grouse moor. But what if a shooting estate has more than one grouse moor? Many do, I believe. And what about raptor roosting sites not actually being on a grouse moor, but still part of a shooting estate? Oh well, it is only an email… We know what he means… we hope!
“In bringing forward an amendment I am not seeking to alter the licensing scheme that was agreed by Parliament, rather I am seeking to address the uncertainty surrounding the interpretation of the provision within the 1981 Act in order to ensure that the licensing scheme operates in the manner members intended when they voted to pass the 2024 Act.”
Errr… doesn’t that add a degree of uncertainty, and therefore risk, to the matter?
Why not address the direct cause of the problem, which was that the licensing scheme that was agreed by Parliament – the 2024 Act – explicitly defined that the owner or occupier of an area of land, alone, decided the area of land to which the licence is to relate?
The following URL opens the latest available whole Act for me (I trust it does for others)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2024/4#openingOptionsContent
Below is the offending wording in the 2024 Act (I have italicized relevant phrases). It is unambiguous, the owner (or occupier) alone gets to specify what land relates to what licence.
If that remains unchanged (see Jim Fairlie’s email above) how is it to be over-ridded? Which piece of legislation takes precedence?
Moreover nowhere, that I can find, are there any limits to how many licences relating to different parcels of specified land an owner or occupier may possess!
Why not simply tackle those two issues directly: limit licences to one per Estate, and define the Estate according to the Land Register of Scotland and/or the General Register of Sasines?
Why would that not work?
BEGIN QUOTES…
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.
(4)An application for a section 16AA licence must—
(c)specify the area of land to which the licence is to relate
(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
(b)may be granted or renewed for a period not exceeding 5 years.
…END QUOTES
Whatever happens in the future, we are left with the mess caused by 10.2.6.b above – current ‘faulty’ licences are granted for 5 years:-(
I think a wise person might have granted an initial licence for just one year, to see how the legislation went, and then extended it upon subsequent renewals. But no…
I emailed the SNP, the Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Greens and the Parliamentary Counsel Office asking who inserted/asked for clause 10.2.4.c and why did they vote for it? (I give up on the Tories and Lib Dems over this issue)
No one replied:-(
Thanks Keith for the lengths you go to for people on here, the lengths you go to in pursuit of evidence + info.
…and also Thanks for the lengths you go to & effort you make contacting MPs, the Scots, Govt etc etc over issues (can’t blame you for giving up on Tories & Lib dems)
Highly intelligent man