Meeting of the Parliament 19 March 2024
Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 61 would require that, as the licensing authority, NatureScot “must” grant a Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 proposed new section 16AA licence if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so. Although I understand the reasons for the amendment and am sympathetic to them, I have concerns about unintended consequences that that amendment might cause.
It is impossible to predict every circumstance that could arise in relation to licence applications. As such, it is important that NatureScot has discretion in assessing whether to grant a licence. That is especially important when we consider that a grouse shooting licence will be valid for five years. I fear that, by setting out in the bill that NatureScot “must” grant a licence, amendment 61 risks creating an expectation that gaining such a licence is simply a tick-box exercise. Although I appreciate that that is not the intention behind amendment 61, I remain concerned that it could remove the element of discretion that NatureScot must have in assessing the various factors, including the applicant’s background and compliance history. It would also impact on NatureScot’s ability to refuse a licence in a situation where it has good reason to do so.
For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 61, and I encourage members to vote against it.
On amendments 63 and 64, as NatureScot is a public body I would always expect it to give reasons for refusing a licence application. I am therefore happy to support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 63 and 64, and I encourage members to vote for them.
Amendment 65 would require that notice of any modification, suspension or revocation of a licence must include the reasons for doing so, together with
“information about the process for appealing the decision”
to a sheriff under proposed new section 16AB of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Information about the appeals process against licensing decisions will be included in the licensing guidance that will be developed. I would expect that, before making an appeal to the sheriff, the applicant would first go through NatureScot’s internal appeals process. It is likely that a sheriff would require that the applicant first make an attempt to resolve the dispute outside the courts, by using that internal appeals process, before appealing to the sheriff. Amendment 65 overlooks the internal appeals process provided by NatureScot. For that reason, I cannot support amendment 65, and I encourage members to vote against it.
Colin Smyth’s amendments 66, 77 and 79 would allow for section 14(2A) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to be disapplied in relation to land where a proposed new section 16AA licence has been modified, revoked or suspended. The effect of disapplying section 14(2A) of the 1981 act would be to prevent the release of non-native species such as pheasant or red-legged partridge for the purposes of shooting. Although I would be concerned if a grouse moor licence scheme proved not to be a deterrent to raptor persecution, I believe that it would not be a simple measure for grouse moor estates to change the quarry that they offer for sport shooting. I know that it does happen but, to put in context the matter that Colin Smyth has spoken about, I say that it is highly unusual.
Additionally, as grouse habitat is heather moorland, any sport shooting of other game species on moorland that is not covered by a Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 proposed new section 16AA licence runs the risk of flushing and shooting grouse. That would constitute an offence under section 1 of the 1981 act, with the possibility of vicarious liability also applying to the landowner or the land manager. Currently, the bill provides that both of those species can be added to the 1981 act proposed new section 16AA licence scheme by regulation in the future, if evidence were to support a link between management of those species and illegal killing of birds of prey. At present, however, we do not have the evidence base to link the release of those game birds to raptor persecution.
For those reasons, I cannot support the amendments, and I encourage members to vote against them.