Tag: scottish parliament

The gaping loophole in the Scottish grouse shoot licences is a step closer to being closed off after a Government amendment was voted through at Stage 2 of the Natural Environment Bill just before Xmas.

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The idea was that a licence to shoot Red Grouse could be amended / withdrawn / revoked by NatureScot if evidence showed that illegal raptor persecution had taken place (importantly, based on the civil burden of proof, i.e. balance of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, in November 2024, just three months after they began, the licences were significantly weakened after legal threats from the grouse shooting industry were used to successfully sabotage the licensing regime. 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:

In addition to this, the changes made to the licence by NatureScot meant that a whole suite of other relevant offences listed in the Wildlife Management & Muirburn Act that were 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) were NOT covered, which was clearly going against the intent of Parliament when the Wildlife & Muirburn Act was voted for.

Conservationists and some politicians, notably Mark Ruskell MSP from the Scottish Greens, campaigned throughout 2025 and kept the pressure on the Scottish Government to address this loophole. Mark Ruskell lodged amendments at Stage 2 and 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill during 2025 (see here) but didn’t press it because by that time, Minister Jim Fairlie had announced the Government’s intention to lodge an amendment during the Natural Environment Bill instead. (Mark also lodged an amendment (#31) to the Natural Environment Bill, just to make sure the subject was covered, but withdrew it in favour of supporting the Government’s amendment).

The Government’s proposed amendment (#35) to the Natural Environment Bill was lodged on 7 November 2025 – I blogged about that here. Minister Fairlie wrote to the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee on 30 October 2025 to notify the committee of the Government’s intention:

Predictably, certain members of the Rural Affairs Committee wanted to push back against the amendment, presumably at the behest of lobbyists from the grouse shooting sector, and there followed a series of back and forth letters between the Committee and Minister Fairlie, with the Committee wanting more ‘clarity’ about the need to close the grouse licensing loophole and the Minister providing the rationale behind it. That correspondence can be read here:

In the middle of all this correspondence, the Scottish Government’s amendment (#35) was debated at Stage 2 of the Natural Environment Bill during a Rural Affairs Committee hearing on 19 November 2025.

I’m not going to repeat the detail of that debate, nor of Conservative MSP Rachael Hamilton’s counter amendments (#35a, 35b, and 335) because you can read it in the official report of that meeting (page 78 and Cabinet Secretary Gillian Martin’s response starting on p84) and also in the official report of the continued debate on 10 December 2025 (starting at the bottom of page 124). Both reports are provided below:

The Government’s amendment was pressed, as were Rachael Hamilton’s three counter amendments, and the votes went as follows:

Amendments #35a, 35b and 335 in the name of Rachael Hamilton were all defeated by seven votes to two (the two Conservatives on the Committee, Finlay Carson & Tim Eagle the only ones to support the amendments).

Amendment 35 in the name of Jim Fairlie was agreed by seven votes to two (the two Conservative MSPs being the only ones opposed to it).

This all looks promising, assuming the Bill will progress without further new amendments at Stage 3 to sabotage progress again, although even if there are, they’re unlikely to pass given the entire Parliament can vote at Stage 3, rather than just a small cross-party committee, and the Conservatives simply don’t have anywhere near sufficient numbers to push this through against a Government-led amendment that also has the support of the Greens, Labour and Lib Dems.

Good.

The Scottish Government deserves credit for acting to close the loophole but massive credit also to Scottish Green Mark Ruskell MSP for holding the SNP’s feet to the fire.

It won’t be the end of the story though. As I blogged in November, the effective implementation of the amended legislation will still rely heavily on NatureScot standing up to the powerful landowning lobby, who I have no doubt will try every trick in the book to avoid licence revocations when the inevitable raptor persecution crimes and other ‘relevant offences’ are uncovered on grouse shooting estates.

NatureScot’s track record is not at all convincing on this (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here and here for a few examples of many).

In the short term, the ineffectiveness of the licensing scheme would be frustrating if the wildlife killers were still getting away with their crimes. But in the longer term, if licensing is shown to be ineffective, as many of us think it will be, then the Scottish Government will only have one option left – a complete ban on all grouse shooting.

A long-running campaign calling for licences to permit falconers to hunt Mountain Hares for ‘sport’ in Scotland has been defeated again, this time at Stage 2 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.

The campaign for falconry licences began after Mountain Hares received protected status under the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020, following widespread public revulsion about the grotesque annual slaughter of thousands of Mountain Hares on many driven grouse moors across Scotland, amidst scientific concerns of a massive decline of the Mountain Hare population.

A falconer called Barry Blyther (Elite Falconry in Fife) lodged a petition (#PE1859) at the Scottish Parliament in 2021 calling for legislation to be amended to allow licences to be issued to falconers wishing to hunt Mountain Hares for sport.

This petition received support from the usual suspects on the Petitions Committee (I blogged about one particularly unpleasant committee discussion on it in January 2023 – here) and since then it has received a surprising amount of attention for such a niche subject (see here for the extraordinary amount of correspondence the petition has generated from June 2021 right up to November 2025 – you need to click where it says ‘Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee Consideration‘).

To cut a long story short, the petitioner was eventually granted a licence by NatureScot to hunt a limited number of Mountain Hares for a very specific purpose in October 2024 but he was dissatisfied with this outcome and still wanted to pursue a change in the legislation to be allowed to hunt Mountain Hares for the purpose of falconry (sport).

He returned to the Petitions Committee in March 2025, telling them about his Golden Eagle called Stanley and “the self mutilation that had started during his incarceration and subsequent melancholy“. The Petitions Committee subsequently pressed the Minister for Agriculture (Jim Fairlie MSP) for his view on amending the legislation.

The Minister replied in May 2025 and stated that, ‘Since the unfavourable-inadequate conservation status of mountain hare has not changed since March 2023, we do not intend to remove the current protections in place‘.

The petitioner then decided to lobby Scottish Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser to lodge an amendment (#157) to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at Stage 2, calling for a change to Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 that would permit NatureScot to grant licences to allow the taking of Mountain Hares for the purpose of falconry.

This amendment was debated at the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee meeting on 19 November 2025 (along with amendments proposing controls on the release of non-native gamebirds for shooting – discussed on a recent blog here).

Here’s how the discussion on falconry licences went:

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): I want to move on from swifts and pheasants to talk about the other end of the bird family, which is the eagle population—not Tim Eagle, but the golden eagle. Specifically, I want to talk about why Stanley, the sad golden eagle, is sad and why I want the committee to make him happy.

Amendment 157, which is the only amendment that I have lodged to the bill, deals with a specific issue that has been raised with me by constituents. It seeks to amend section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to permit NatureScot to grant licences to allow the taking of mountain hares for the purpose of falconry. I lodged the amendment on behalf of my constituents Barry and Roxanne Blyther, who run a business called Elite Falconry in Fife.

As members might be aware, there are very few falconers in Scotland—there are no more than a few dozen—and it is very much a niche activity. However, the matter is very important to those who participate in the business and sport of falconry. My amendment seeks to address what I think was an unintended consequence of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020, which includes the protection of mountain hares.

Members who were in Parliament at that time might recall that, when the bill passed through Parliament, a late stage 3 amendment was accepted to include mountain hares among protected species. Because that was introduced at stage 3, there was no appropriate opportunity to allow proper consultation and discussion on the implications of that.

Had that been permitted, an unintended consequence would have become obvious: the impact on the sport and activities of falconers. The consequence of the change to the law in 2020 is that someone who flies birds of prey that swoop down and kill a mountain hare, which is in their nature to do, over moorland is guilty of an offence. That makes it very hazardous for falconers to do that activity where mountain hares might live, so they are severely restricted.

Therefore, the purpose of amendment 157 is to permit NatureScot to license falconers so that they can continue their activity on moorland, where mountain hares might be, without the fear of being prosecuted. When issuing such licences, NatureScot would be required to consider the welfare of mountain hares and their population numbers in the normal way, so the amendment is not about writing a blank cheque and putting the mountain hare population at risk.

Members might be aware that the issue has been assiduously pursued by my constituents through the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. They might recall that Jackson Carlaw, the convener of that committee, hosted Stanley the sad golden eagle in the parliamentary garden. I recall, as other members will do with some amusement, the terror on Jackson Carlaw’s face as he stood in the close vicinity of the golden eagle. That committee supported the petition and urged the Scottish Government to change the law in the area.

My sensible proposition will allow NatureScot to license falconers to continue their activities on moorland. It would not have any serious impact on the mountain hare population given the numbers involved. We would allow falconers to conduct their business without fear of prosecution. I hope that colleagues on the committee who are sympathetic to golden eagles and falconers will grant their support and make Stanley the sad golden eagle a happy golden eagle instead.

Cabinet Secretary Gillian Martin MSP responded as follows:

On amendment 157, the legislation is clear that birds of prey can still be used to take mountain hares for other purposes when that is carried out under a licence granted by NatureScot. I will give Murdo Fraser a bit of detail on that. Licences have been issued as recently as this year. Mountain hares are a protected species in Scotland because of concerns about their population. We appreciate that there are many occasions when falconers and birds might take non-target species, such as mountain hares, when they have been legitimately hunting other species such as red grouse. Provided that that was not done intentionally or recklessly, it would be unlikely to be considered an offence.

Furthermore, as drafted, the amendment goes much further than allowing the taking of mountain hares for the purpose of falconry. It would permit any species listed in schedules 5, 5A or 6A to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to be taken for the purposes of falconry, which could include grass snakes and water voles. I stress, however, that if mountain hares are taken unintentionally, it is unlikely to be considered an offence.

Murdo Fraser MSP: I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that explanation. How would intention be established in those circumstances?

Gillian Martin MSP: It is for police officers to determine whether a mountain hare was taken intentionally, and they would need to demonstrate that that was the case. Mr Fraser is a lawyer, and he will know that such a case would be up to lawyers to prove.

That is the advice that I have been given on the issue. I remember when the provision was put in at stage 3 of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill, when there was no scrutiny of it. I gently say to members that, since that happened, a great number of things have been brought into many bills at stage 3 where that has been the case.

Murdo Fraser decided to press Amendment 157 and a vote was taken by the scrutinising committee on 10 December 2025. There was a clear division amongst members of the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee, as follows:

FOR (in support of the amendment):

Finlay Carson MSP (Conservatives) and Time Eagle (Conservatives)

AGAINST:

Alasdair Allan MSP (SNP), Rhoda Grant MSP (Labour), Emma Harper (SNP), Emma Roddick MSP (SNP), Mark Ruskell MSP (Green), Evelyn Tweed (SNP), Beatrice Wishart (Lib Dem).

So the amendment was defeated.

There is a very slim chance that this issue could return at Stage 3, although given Mr Blyther’s repeatedly-stated disgruntlement about new amendments being added at Stage 3 (i.e. relating to the Stage 3 amendment of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill which resulted in Mountain Hares receiving protected status), it would be pretty hypocritical of him to try. Besides, as the amendment has now been voted upon and defeated at Stage 2, any new amendment would need to be materially different for it to be selected for debate at Stage 3.

Petition PE1859 remains open (five years after it was first lodged!) and unlike petitions at Westminster, which automatically close when parliament is dissolved for elections, petitions in Scotland may remain open to be picked up by the new, in-coming Petitions Committee, post election, should the current Petitions Committee choose to take that option.

The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament in February 2025 and received extensive scrutiny through Parliamentary Stages 1 and 2, which concluded in December 2025 just prior to the Xmas break.

The Bill as it currently stands after Stage 2 can be read here.

The Bill is quite broad but generally deals with proposals to introduce targets to improve biodiversity, proposals on Environmental Impact Assessments and the Habitats Regulations, proposals on the aims of National Parks and their management, and proposals on the management of wild deer.

Stage 3 of the Bill, where final amendments can be lodged and debated in the Chamber prior to a vote on whether the Bill is passed is expected to take place soon, with the goal of completing it prior to the dissolution of the Parliament for the May 2026 election.

There are many topics of interest in this Bill but those of specific interest to this blog include amendments relating to closing the loophole in the grouse moor licensing scheme (I’ll blog separately on that) [UPDATE – new blog on grouse moor licensing here], a proposed amendment to permit licences to falconers to take Mountain Hares (I’ll blog separately on that) [UPDATE – new blog on falconry licences here] and a number of amendments relating to the licensing of non-native gamebird releases (Pheasants & Red-legged Partridges). That is the subject of this particular blog.

There were over 300 amendments proposed to this Bill and the Stage 2 debates, led by the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee, took place during extended sessions on 19th and 26th November and 3rd and 10th December 2025, including additional sessions that had to continue into the evenings just to get through them all.

The amendments relating to non-native gamebird releases were heard on 19th November and interestingly, were proposed by three MSPs from three different parties – Lorna Slater MSP (Scottish Greens), Mercedes Villalba MSP (Scottish Labour) and Beatrice Wishart MSP (Scottish Lib Dems).

Lorna Slater’s amendment (Amendment #40) proposed a licensing scheme for Pheasants (surprisingly, she didn’t include Red-legged Partridges, I’m not sure why) to curb the mass release of non-native gamebirds to be shot for entertainment. A Scottish Greens press release on this issue can be read here.

She wasn’t calling for an immediate outright ban, although she acknowledged, during the debate, a personal opinion that that would be a “good idea”. I suspect she probably went for licensing rather than a ban because she recognised that without scientific evidence showing the damaging impact to the environment of releasing millions of non-native gamebirds, the Scottish Government would be unlikely to take such a step. She argued that:

“We should know how many Pheasants there are, who is releasing them and where, and we should know the impact they are having on our environment. We do not know those things“.

Predictably, her proposal was attacked by the three Conservative committee members (Tim Eagle MSP, Rachael Hamilton MSP and Finlay Carson MSP) with varying degrees of outrage and ignorance. Notable was Tim Eagle’s reference to the recent report on gamebird releases in the Cairngorms National Park, where he, let’s be charitable, perhaps inadvertently, misrepresented the report’s findings (which I discussed in a previous blog, here).

Lorna Slater withdrew Amendment #40 in favour of Amendment #12 in the name of Mercedes Villalba MSP (see below).

Mercedes Villalba proposed a couple of amendments relating to gamebird releases. Amendment #12 proposed modifying Section 14 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (introduction of new species etc) whereby Scottish Ministers must publish a strategy for the long-term management of an introduced (non-native) species including an assessment of the expected effect of the non-native species on the natural environment.

Mercedes’ other amendment on this subject (#55) proposed repealing Section 14 part 2a of the W&C Act, which exempts anyone releasing Pheasants and Red-legged Partridge from committing an offence if releasing a non-native species beyond its native range. She argued that the game-shooting sector had negotiated this exemption as part of the Wildlife & Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 but that this amounted to ‘putting up our natural environment for sale’ where commercial profit for private shareholders (shoot owners) was causing additional cost to the public purse for environmental conservation.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment (#269) proposed giving Scottish Ministers the power to restrict releases of non-native gamebirds where those releases risk damaging flora, fauna or the wider environment. It would enable Ministers to specify where and when such restrictions apply, based on evidence of environmental harm. Beatrice said during the debate that her amendment was triggered after learning that Red-legged Partridges had been released on Shetland!

She lodged a further amendment (#270) proposing to amend Section 44 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to give NatureScot explicit powers of entry to land for the purpose of monitoring or assessing species that are considered to be outside of their natural range. She argued that this would “provide the practical access that is needed for early detection, accurate assessment and timely intervention – key principles of effective non-native species management“.

In response to these proposals, Cabinet Secretary Gillian Martin MSP urged the members not to press the amendments at Stage 2 and that she was willing to work with them, ahead of Stage 3, to see whether further refinement / agreement could be found.

Speaking to the amendments collectively, she said this:

“I acknowledge the concerns that stakeholders and the committee have expressed about invasive non-native species. I am aware that INNS are one of the key drivers of biodiversity loss, as identified by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and ambitious targets are set out in the global biodiversity framework to tackle that. I am also mindful of the concerns that have been expressed about the species that have been exempted from the provisions in section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

“Stakeholders have highlighted the potential impacts of the common pheasant and red-legged partridge on our native biodiversity, as well as the risks that those species pose in relation to the spread of avian influenza. Stakeholders have also spoken about the effects of the self-seeding of Sitka spruce on sensitive habitats such as peat bog.

“Given those concerns, I absolutely understand why Mercedes Villalba has lodged her set of amendments. I agree entirely that having in place a robust process to manage the impacts of any non-native species that are exempted from section 14(1) and (2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes sense. However, we must ensure that such a process is aligned fully with current legislation, is workable in practice and does not cause harm to Scotland’s rural economy…

“... Amendment 55 would remove the current exemption for common pheasant and red-legged partridges. The Scottish Government is aware of the concern about the potential impact of game bird releases. However, we are concerned that— as has been mentioned by members—we currently do not have a complete calculation of the number of game birds that are being released in Scotland. Without that information, it is very difficult to take an informed view on the potential impacts.

“Having heard what has been said in today’s discussion, we will give careful consideration to whether further research is needed to address the evidence gaps. Although I cannot support the amendment at this stage, I am committed to exploring whether additional research needs to be undertaken—I suggest that it does—in order to strengthen our understanding and to support informed discussion on sustainable game bird management in Scotland in the future”.

There was an intervention by Lorna Slater:

“We are in some agreement on the data collection point. My Conservative colleagues to my right have also expressed some frustration that we do not have the data. However, arguing that we do not know how many game birds are released is somewhat circular, given that licensing would provide a mechanism to determine that. I am not suggesting that any restrictions be applied until data is gathered. I am interested in hearing a more robust commitment from the cabinet secretary about data collection so that both sides of the argument can come to the discussion with some evidence, rather than our own particular views”.

The Cabinet Secretary responded:

“As I said, I have heard all the arguments on the issue, and they are well
rehearsed. I have pretty much committed to further research on the issue, which I think is needed“.

None of the amendments were pressed and it remains to be seen whether they return in a slightly different format at Stage 3.

Whether they return or not, it’s very encouraging that the issue of releasing millions of non-native gamebirds for so-called ‘sport shooting’ continues to be raised in the Scottish Parliament, and especially as the amendments were lodged by politicians from three separate parties.

This issue isn’t going away anytime soon.

If you’re interested in the details of the various discussions and debates held during the session on 19 November 2025 you can watch the parliamentary video (here) or read / download the official report (transcript) here:

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.

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)

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.

Thanks to those of you who wrote to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Agriculture & Connectivity, Jim Fairlie MSP, last month to ask what the Scottish Government intended to do to fix the massive loophole that now exists in the amended licence. I’ve yet to see any substantial response from him.

Meanwhile, it seems other politicians have taken a keen interest in proceedings and Colin Smyth MSP (Scottish Labour) has now lodged the following parliamentary questions:

S6W-34517: To ask the Scottish Government whether it will publish the (a) legal and (b) other advice obtained by NatureScot regarding which areas of land should be covered by a 16AA licence under the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024.

S6W-34518: To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported criticisms from members of the conservation sector regarding the changes made to grouse shooting licences by NatureScot and, in the light of this, what steps it plans to ensure that the operation of section 16AA licences fulfils the intentions of (a) it and (b) the Parliament.

S6W-34519: To ask the Scottish Government on what dates NatureScot met (a) Police Scotland and (b) the National Wildlife Crime Unit before seeking approval for a new grouse licensing condition regarding raptor persecution from land and estates.

S6W-34520: To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on (a) the comment by NatureScot on 19 July 2026 that “raptor persecution undertaken in connection with grouse moor management could take place anywhere on a property, not just on the grouse moor itself”, and (b) whether the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 needs to be amended to ensure that the 16AA grouse shooting licence covers an applicant’s whole landholding and not the grouse moor only.

These questions were lodged on 6 February 2025 and answers are expected by 6 March 2025.

There’s more going on behind the scenes. Watch this space.

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.

Further to the news that Scotland’s new grouse moor licences have already been significantly weakened thanks to legal threats from the grouse shooting industry (see here, here, here and here for background), a blog reader wrote to the Scottish Government to express concern about the restriction in the area now covered by the licence.

This has changed from covering an entire grouse-shooting estate (as initially and reasonably interpreted by NatureScot) to just an unaccetably small part of an estate where red grouse are ‘shot or taken’, which effectively on a driven grouse moor could mean an area around a row of shooting butts.

That blog reader has kindly given permission to publish the response received from the Scottish Government’s Wildlife Management Unit:

It’s good to see a formal, public response from the Scottish Government who, up until now, has kept quiet since the news broke about the shambolic new licence condition a few weeks ago.

In its response, the Government uses the same phrasing that NatureScot did in terms of having an ‘expectation’ that the new licensed area would cover the full extent of the grouse moor. As I mentioned previously when NatureScot expressed the same ‘expectation’, I don’t believe this has any legal weight whatsoever because what matters here is the wording of the legislation, not what NatureScot or the Government ‘expects’ to happen.

The Government’s response also doubles down on NatureScot’s claim that the new condition is ‘legally robust‘ and acts as ‘a strong deterrent to wildlife crime‘.

The new condition may well be legally robust (although we don’t know that for sure because NatureScot is yet to release the legal advice it received prior to making this change to the licence) but what it most certainly isn’t is ‘a strong deterrent to wildlife crime‘. It’s nothing of the sort, for all the reasons I discussed here.

What is good about this response though is that the Government understands that the licensing scheme is not having ‘the intended effect‘ of the Scottish Parliament when the legislation was passed in March. That’s a start.

There’s a lot happening behind the scenes to address the ‘vast loophole‘ that’s been left by NatureScot’s flawed attempt at plugging the chasm. I can’t say anything further at the moment but rest assured this issue is receiving close attention from a number of influential and knowledgeable people.

UPDATE 24 January 2025: NatureScot capitulated on grouse moor licensing after legal threats by game-shooting industry (here)

UPDATE 10 February 2025: Parliamentary questions lodged on grouse moor licensing shambles in Scotland (here)

UPDATE 3 November 2025: Breaking news – Scottish Government commits to closing loophole on sabotaged grouse moor licences (here)