Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Official Report 454KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Game Bird Hunting (Licensing) (PE1615)

The third item on our agenda this morning is consideration of PE1615 by Logan Steele, on behalf of the Scottish raptor study group, on a state-regulated licensing system for game bird hunting in Scotland. The committee previously took evidence on the petition on 18 April. This morning, we have been presented with options for progressing the petition. I refer members to paper 3 and invite comments on the options, and on any other options that they might want to be considered.

I would like to take the opportunity to sketch out my views on this matter before talking about the option that I support.

First, I thank Logan Steele for his evidence. His approach was clear, concise and evidence-based, and we would all do well to take that approach when coming at this issue, because passions run high.

Everyone is clear that raptor crime needs to be resolved and that raptor persecution remains a concern. I would like to appeal to anyone who is tempted to stoop to criminal activity in cases such as those that we are talking about, because harm is also being done to land managers, keepers and others who are in the industry but are not doing anything wrong. The reputational damage to those people is quite serious.

I am still not convinced that game bird licensing is the magic answer. The Scottish Natural Heritage report and the evidence from BirdLife International suggest that, in European countries that have a form of game bird licensing, raptor persecution is still a widespread phenomenon, and such activities still occur regularly in most European countries.

There are alternatives to game bird licensing, but they depend on trust, and I think that we need to contribute more resources to the systematic monitoring of the level of persecution of bird populations and the effective enforcement of law, which is probably the most important aspect of this issue.

What is of key concern are the broken relationships that I see in this industry in Scotland. I welcome the approach by Scottish Land & Estates and other organisations that have come together to try to find alternative solutions. I continue to be concerned about reducing the burden of proof and the potential for burdening the law-abiding majority. There is a bigger issue in all this that is to do with land ownership, which has a significant impact on hunting practices.

In conclusion, with all those concerns and thoughts, I would like the Scottish Government to conduct further inquiry into the issue, which is why I support option 2 in paper 3. However, I would like to see a line in any letter from the convener that says that the committee is not unanimous in its support for game bird licenses, that we would like more information on the matter and that we would like the Scottish Government to consider the matter.

I commend Logan Steele for his evidence and recognise that we are dealing with a serious problem, but I also note that the even bigger problem that we face is the lack of trust, which is the main hurdle when it comes to solving this problem.

I note my entry in the register of member’s interests in relation to countryside management.

I want to make a number of points that lead me to my position. Game bird licensing is being proposed to combat wildlife crime. There is already considerable legislation covering wildlife crime; the issue has always been around enforcement.

The evidence demonstrates that the legislation is producing a downward trend in wildlife crime, and it is well documented that the declining but residual wildlife crime problem rests with a handful of upland grouse moors. Game bird licensing would apply to the whole of Scotland and would also cover pheasant, partridge and duck shoots, in relation to which there has been no suggestion of wildlife crime. The cost of the licensing system is proposed to be borne by the shoot and will further threaten what is a valued but highly marginal sector. That financial detriment is already being increased with the reintroduction of sporting rates.

Further legislation that will improve wildlife prosecutions, namely regulations on land registration, is under way and should further reduce wildlife crime. The licensing system that is being proposed is used in Europe, where there are different issues, and it has had no effect on wildlife crime, so I conclude that the proposed licensing system is inappropriate, disproportional and unworkable for the issue of wildlife crime that it seeks to address.

However, although I am in favour of dismissing the petition, I was pleased to see the positive option put forward by Scottish Land & Estates, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and the Scottish moorland group. In the interests of achieving cross-party consensus, I support their proposals being progressed.

11:30  

Is that an alternative proposal to options 1 and 2?

Yes.

Just to be clear, your proposal is that the committee should recommend those organisations’ proposals to the cabinet secretary and close the petition.

Yes.

That is now on the record.

I, too, recognise Logan Steele’s commitment in progressing the petition. I note that when he gave evidence to the committee he commented that 40 years of work was required to resolve some of the intractable issues relating to wildlife crime.

I support option 2, and particularly the possibility of considering

“a flexible and non-onerous licensing regime”.

If that were to be introduced, it might apply only to intensive driven grouse moors or to all game bird shooting. Those options are a matter of public record, and I have listened to the points made by others about any regime not being too onerous. There could, however, be clear criteria that would have to be met for sustainability and biodiversity, and perhaps in relation to muirburn.

The lower burden of proof for civil law is an important aspect, because, in the remote areas where wildlife crimes often take place, corroboration is difficult. The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee in session 4 heard much evidence of that and, as a member for South Scotland, I am keenly aware of that issue. I acknowledge the risk of vexatious troublemakers who might wish to pin something on someone, but that is the case with all crime. It is something that one needs to be keenly aware of, but it is not a reason for me not to support licensing in Scotland.

One of the points raised in option 2 is the possibility that a licensing system could be trialled somewhere, and I support that, too.

In conclusion, I am keen for the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government to explore with stakeholders the need for and benefit of such a licensing system, and I am keen for us to keep the petition open.

I, too, want to thank Logan Steele for the measured way in which he has presented the petition and the evidence before us. It has added light, rather than heat, to the issue. However, I believe that the voluntary approach has failed in Scotland and I think that the view of the shooting industry that we should just further embed the voluntary approach is the wrong way forward if we are seriously to tackle the issue, so I would not back the options being proposed by Alexander Burnett. It is clear that, although the body count of raptors is down, we still have a problem with wildlife crime, particularly around driven grouse moor estates. The population data for those areas suggests that we should have far higher numbers of raptor species and far greater diversity in those areas than we do at the moment.

We have also seen in the public domain strong evidence of wildlife crime, yet the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has failed to take those cases forward. That all points to the need for a much lower burden of proof so that we can tackle the issue once and for all. Of course there are good estates out there that are meeting the terms of the law and are carrying out good practice; I do not think that they would have anything to be concerned about if a licensing scheme was brought in.

There is a concern about vexatious evidence tampering and people with grudges who might try to set up well-meaning estates. I do not believe that that concern is widespread, but it is important, in considering the development of any licensing scheme, that that is taken seriously into account.

I would have preferred a slightly stronger recommendation than option 2—one that had clear timescales for the Scottish Government to act—but I am prepared to back option 2 as a compromise that keeps this important issue going and pushes us in a direction of light-touch regulation that gets the job done and restores our raptor species in Scotland.

I have also written a couple of notes. I am a new member of the Parliament and I have no direct experience of shooting processes, grouse moor management or anything like that, apart from the evidence that I have heard in committee and what I have read.

As a member of the committee, I, too, thank Logan Steele for his petition and his diligent work in progressing it. I agree with Kate Forbes that raptor crime needs to continue to be addressed. As a South Scotland MSP, I am acutely aware that people have contacted me to support further engagement and at least doing something about raptor crime. It appears that a really small number of people are participating in criminal activity and I am sure that the majority of estate owners and gamekeepers are acting lawfully. That needs to be made clear.

Something further needs to be done, however, and I am keen to pursue option 2, especially in relation to looking at intensive grouse moor management systems, not just a blanket statement of licensing for everybody. Perhaps we need to target that particular area.

The most salient point of option 2 is that

“there does not appear to be a significant problem of raptor persecution in relation to walk-up grouse moors”

but, as we have heard,

“there does appear to be an issue”

with regard to intensive grouse management. It is imperative that the Scottish Government explores with stakeholders the need for or the benefit of such a licensing system.

The jury is still out, which is why I believe that the Scottish Government should do more work, including looking at carrying out a pilot or a trial. I believe that we should keep the petition open, pending further responses from the cabinet secretary.

I have a confession to make. My son stays in Mr Burnett’s constituency and, having had the experience of going up there and knowing how much shooting is part and parcel of the Scottish way of life and how much businesses depend on it, on this occasion, I have to support Mr Burnett.

I am looking at the cabinet secretary’s letter. She writes:

“The Scottish Government has made a number of changes to the law in recent years to tackle illegal raptor killing, including the introduction of vicarious liability for certain offences”.

She continues:

“As regards licensing, it is worth recalling that we repealed the requirement for individual hunters to purchase an annual licence in 2011 as it was not thought to serve any useful purpose. I think it is unlikely that there is any case for this sort of licensing to be reintroduced.”

She goes on to say that she would like to be clear that it would

“require primary legislation to bring into force which could well be difficult and contentious ... A licensing scheme may be a useful addition to the toolbox, but it will still depend on someone gathering evidence of wrong-doing in order to justify removal of a licence to operate a business.”

I abhor the illegal killing of raptors and other birds. I abhor that in any form. However, option 2 is not for me. I support Mr Burnett.

Thank you. No other member is indicating that they want to comment.

This has been a challenging issue on which to come to a conclusion. Like other members, I thought that the petitioner’s evidence was reasoned and that he was commendably honest in acknowledging that he does not have all the answers.

There is no doubt that we have to do more to tackle the issue. Simply drawing the cabinet secretary’s attention to the transcript of this meeting and closing the petition is not an option that I can support.

However, like other members, I have concerns about introducing a regime that would cover all game bird shooting. Raptor persecution is not entirely confined to areas where intensive driven grouse management practices are to the fore, but the majority of incidents occur in those areas and there are hot spots. We need a targeted approach.

I support option 2 and, in particular, the suggestion that the Government explore a regime that is targeted at intensive driven grouse shooting. In my view, we should not tar every shooting business, estate and gamekeeper with the same brush; we need to marginalise the bad guys.

I also support consultation on what a licensing regime might encompass. It strikes me that adherence to the muirburn code and restrictions on the use of medicated grit and mountain hare culls could form part of a licensing regime, but that would be for the stakeholder group to take forward—if the committee supported option 2 and the Government chose to take it forward.

Some of the suggestions for change that have come from Scottish Land & Estates, among others, are a welcome contribution to the debate and are in keeping with SLE’s stance on raptor crime, in particular. I hope that those suggestions might be considered alongside the proposals in option 2.

Like other members, I support option 2, because it is the most appropriate recommendation that the committee could make.

If there are no further comments from members, we will move to a vote. In essence, there are three options on the table. I will clarify them and ensure that members are content with them. Option 1 is that we draw the cabinet secretary’s attention to the transcript of this meeting and close the petition. Option 2 is as set out in our papers. Option 3 is the one that Mr Burnett put forward—I will bring him in, so that we can be clear about what it is.

Option 3 is to close the petition and to recommend to the cabinet secretary that discussions are progressed in line with the submission from Scottish Land & Estates and others.

Thank you. We will vote on the options in order. Are members in favour of option 1?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

Against

Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

The result of the division is: For 0, Against 10, Abstentions 0. Are members in favour of option 2?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

Against

Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 4, Abstentions 0. Are members in favour of option 3?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

Against

Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

Abstentions

Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 1.

The committee’s decision, by majority, is to support option 2. We will therefore write to the cabinet secretary. For the purposes of clarity, are members minded, regardless of the decision that we have reached, to draw the cabinet secretary’s attention to the proposals from Scottish Land & Estates—simply noting them? Is there any objection to that?

Convener, I would be uncomfortable if we were endorsing those proposals. However, I am content for them to be noted.

Do members agree that in our letter to the cabinet secretary we will note the comments of SLE?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members happy for me to write that letter, along the lines that we have agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes, on the proviso that the letter says that the committee is not unanimous in taking a view that game bird licensing is the answer.

Yes. The letter will reflect the views that committee members have expressed today.

At our next meeting, the committee will consider subordinate legislation on tail shortening in working dogs. As agreed earlier, we now move into private session. I ask that the public gallery be cleared, as the public part of the meeting is closed.

11:46 Meeting continued in private until 12:02.