Chamber and committees

I take members back to the Scottish Government policy memorandum that was introduced with the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill. It said that a licence application

“will cover the area of land over which the taking or killing of grouse is to be undertaken.”

That legislation was subject to extensive public consultation and robust parliamentary scrutiny from this committee. The Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 states that a licence can be “revoked” if

“the licence holder fails to comply with any conditions attached to the licence”

and if

“the relevant authority is satisfied that the licence holder has committed a relevant offence”

on the land.

Jim Fairlie’s previously debated amendment 35, which was moved just a minute ago, among other factors, adds a new part to the licensing conditions. It allows

“The relevant authority”

to

“propose a different area to which the licence is to relate from that described in the application”.

If there is no agreement on the

“area of land to which the licence is to relate”,

the licence can be removed.

My amendment 35A, which was disagreed to, sought to remove those changed conditions. I have huge concerns about the SNP amending new legislation, notwithstanding that the matter was already debated ahead of the 2024 act. We are all aware that deterrents are already in place to prevent illegal shooting and the act is clear that licences can be revoked. Amendment 35 will fundamentally alter the operation of the licensing scheme and is at odds with the rigorous process that was followed in 2023 and 2024. It is extraordinary that the Scottish Government said that it would not amend muirburn licensing—that was also brought in by the 2024 act—but is now amending licences under section 16AA of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

I made my points at the time to Gillian Martin, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, and I have raised concerns that amendment 35 challenges the European convention on human rights because it could allow NatureScot to impose the licence on an entire property. Furthermore, amendment 35 directly conflicts with NatureScot’s definition of land as the entire holding. It has also been stated in briefings that there is a King’s counsel’s opinion that it is ultra vires.

On 19 November, we had the unusual situation in committee of Gillian Martin debating amendment 35 on Jim Fairlie’s behalf, so committee members were unable to put concerns directly to him. She read the minister’s notes and argued that it is the Government’s intention to change the circumstances by allowing the Scottish Government to achieve the

“original intention of the grouse licensing scheme”

and ensure that

“relevant offences committed outside the licence area can still lead to suspension or revocation of a licence, closing a loophole that undermines enforcement.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 19 November 2025; c 84-85.]

She went on to say that amendment 35 allows the licensing scheme to act as a “meaningful deterrent”.

Previously, on 11 November, Jim Fairlie wrote to the committee:

“While the majority of estates have adhered to both the spirit and the letter of the law, it is clear that a small number have not.”

I am concerned that that statement is not true. I ask Jim Fairlie to back up that statement in his closing remarks.

In that same letter, Jim Fairlie said that his plans

“will not unfairly penalise or increase burdens on the vast majority of estates who are already complying with ... the law.”

The section 16AA licence can be granted to an owner or occupier of land, but it is not uncommon for sporting rights to be divided and assigned under the terms of a lease to multiple tenants across a single landholding. If the licence applies to the entire estate, it means that sporting tenants will share an identical licensed area.

On 21 November, Jim Fairlie wrote to the committee again, arguing that powers of NatureScot to suspend or revoke a licence had been “narrowly interpreted” and stating that a loophole had been created. Again, I ask: where is the evidence?

Finally, Mr Fairlie has also said that article 1, part 1 of the European convention on human rights would not be breached. Can he share his legal opinion on that, or does he not believe that the scrutiny of legislation that was carried out by the committee was robust? According to an FOI response received from NatureScot on 4 December 2025, it was unaware of any offence being committed on land outwith that specified on the application by the licence holder. I ask the minister once again: where is the evidence to support the need to mitigate a fictional loophole when no offences have been committed?

In summary, amendment 35B seeks to require NatureScot to consult landowners before modifying a section 16AA licence. As for amendment 335, section 37, as drafted, would mean that changes made by amendment 35 would have to be brought into force by regulations, and my amendment seeks to ensure that any such changes cannot be brought in without landowners and other persons who are affected being consulted on the impact of the changes to section 16AA licences. In conclusion, I believe that dark forces have wormed their way into the minister’s head.

I move amendment 35B.

The letter says:

“While the majority of estates have adhered to both the spirit and the letter of the law, it is clear that a small number have not.”

The minister will be aware that, in 2024, NatureScot updated the 16AA licensing conditions and said that it will be up to the person applying for the licence to specify the area to which the licence relates, because initially the grouse licences covered the whole of the landholding. That is what was passed in the 2024 act, so the minister is well aware that changes were made by NatureScot. Can the minister explain whether those were related to the changes that NatureScot made?

My amendments in this group are, as Mark Ruskell has said, amendments to his amendment 32, which seeks to introduce a prohibition on the sale or supply of peat for horticulture. I understand why Mark Ruskell has lodged the amendment—after all, the trajectory is towards a peat-free future for horticulture—but I do not think that now is the time to bring all of this to some immediate conclusion. Instead, we should introduce certain crucial safeguards, and my detailed amendments seek to bring forward such safeguards to ensure that, before there is any such prohibition, ministers do the following things, on which I am going to give some detail.

First, ministers must establish an expert horticultural group to advise on technical measures, the supply of alternatives to peat and market readiness. As Mark Ruskell has said, I am convener of the cross-party group on gardening and horticulture; we have many experts who stand ready and willing to be included in such a group, and I think that they bring huge expertise to the CPG. Ministers would also be required to consult the group that is formed before introducing any regulations and to undertake a full economic and environmental impact assessment on market readiness, the availability of alternatives and projections on international trade and market access.

Ministers must also ensure that there is alignment across the UK to avoid any unnecessary exclusion from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. We do not want to see any obstructions in the supply chain, as there are enough challenges in the economic and business environment as it stands.

Finally, my amendments would introduce safeguards to protect businesses by allowing ministers to create exemptions to any prohibition; providing 12 months after any prohibition to allow for the sale or supply of existing peat stock; and ensuring that there is no end to professional use before 2030, which I think is a reasonable aim for the Government to have. Ministers must also conduct a review ahead of and following implementation of any prohibition for unforeseen peat-free supply chain disruption and market issues. That review would provide advice to ministers based on the expert horticultural group and would allow the Government to pause or suspend regulation. There are many social, cultural and practical considerations that we must take into account here, and I know that the Government is alive to those considerations.

The amendments were drafted with the Horticultural Trades Association, which provides the secretariat for the cross-party group on gardening and horticulture and represents 85 member businesses across 144 sites in Scotland. Mr Fairlie has spoken at the CPG, so he is well aware of the representation on the group. I would also note that the sector contributes £2.6 billion to Scotland’s economy and supports nearly 60,000 jobs, so it is important that we support the horticultural industry and allow it to continue to benefit the communities and the environment.

In summary, I think that I have highlighted the importance of looking towards extending the readiness of the industry—I do not like the word “transition”—given its importance and the fact that it has a much greater and wider societal impact. I will leave it there, convener.

I move amendment 32A.

I will press it, because we find ourselves in a very odd situation. I will not put words in the minister’s mouth, but, from my point of view, it sounds as though he has had to change the bill because he did not think that what the committee had done on the bill—and everything that was done in the legislative process for the 2024 act—was robust enough. We find ourselves having to amend a licensing scheme that was robustly consulted on.

The minister wants the legislation to be more robust and the sector to have confidence. He thinks that more trust will be developed between landowners and the Scottish Government, but he still does not want—

Hang on. The minister still does not want my amendments, which would give landowners the opportunity of a say in decision making when it affects them. I do not remember there being a consultation prior to the change; I do know that various organisations have had meetings with the minister and have opposed the change, not because they want people to break the law or to have their licences revoked for raptor persecution. That is just nonsense. There is no evidence to suggest that there have been any bad actors in this process.

I think that the minister is scared of consultation and of going out to the stakeholders again, because he thinks that there will be a big backlash, so he is just going to change the legislation and it does not matter because he has the numbers on the committee to vote it through.

I listened with great interest to Douglas Ross’s explanation of his amendments, and I fully support them. I believe that my amendments are complementary to his. I support removing the licensing powers from NatureScot. I will go on to discuss why there could be a conflict of interest and why I agree with him on that point.

Amendment 262 would require the Scottish ministers to undertake a review of measures taken to tackle urban gull problems, including how much funding has been allocated to each local authority to tackle disruptive urban gull populations; to specify the methodology of funding; and to outline what consultation and engagement has been done with local communities and affected businesses.

Communities in my constituency that are affected by gulls include Eyemouth, Cockburnspath, Coldingham and Jedburgh. They are semi-rural, but they are experiencing issues, too. I felt that they were excluded in the initial conversations, considering that I met NatureScot in Eyemouth a year ago to discuss the problems of gulls and the lack of support that the community had had. When everything was focused on the Elgin area, I believe that those communities felt excluded.

I recently made an FOI request to ask about the specifics of the funding. On the arrangements for the administration of the fund, the Government’s response said that the agreed fund of £96,000 will be made available to local authorities to support sustainable gull management measures. Those measures are yet to be agreed and are still under development. The Government was aiming to publish details on its website by the end of November 2025, but I am not sure whether that has been done—I have not checked that. If those details are available, I would be happy to hear them from the minister.

I am really concerned that, at the summit, the agreed budget that was stated for local authorities was for this financial year only. Gulls do not breed for just one season, but there is no confirmed budget for 2026-27. I find that very concerning.

Amendment 263 seeks to introduce a review of NatureScot’s licensing functions regarding the management of gulls, and it would require the Scottish ministers to make an annual statement on the number of licences that have been issued.

Aggressive gulls are a serious problem, as the minister knows. They are a persistent problem in towns, including in Coldstream, which I have yet to mention, where ensuring the safety of residents is a serious problem because of gulls. I have been working with local residents, as my colleague Douglas Ross has, and with businesses that have raised concerns about the impact on tourism, primarily due to the public safety risks for visitors.

In Eyemouth, children have been attacked. One girl was left with scalp injuries and blood running down her face. Businesses have told me that their customers have been scared, attacked and traumatised. Even when businesses have offered individuals refunds for meals, food or whatever it might be, members of the public have said that they are too worried to come back and that the incidents that they have experienced have been too traumatising.

Despite NatureScot acknowledging that aggressive gulls are a health and safety issue, its licensing process remains bureaucratic and inconsistent, and local businesses have called it “soul destroying”. Earlier this year, NatureScot refused to grant any gull management licences in Eyemouth and even suggested using dogs on rooftops. However, within 24 hours of pressure being applied, it U-turned and granted two licences, apologising for the way that those applications had been handled. Clearly, there is a problem.

Communities need practical and commonsense solutions. Amendments 262 and 263 push for improved action from the Scottish Government to develop a wider strategy for managing urban gull populations and to review how licences are granted, to ensure that we have a fair and consistent approach.

On the point that I made about the arrangements for the administration of the fund to support gull management measures, has the development of that fund been completed? How will it be administered and given to the local authorities?

Will the deer management plan have a specific reference to a review or action plan to address the fact that, since 1990, there is double the amount of deer? We now have 1 million deer in Scotland, and a lot of that, as we heard from Edward Mountain last week, is going to waste. I know that you are highly tuned into the fact that we need to utilise venison. I find it regrettable that, even though it is such a good, lean protein, public institutions are not putting it on the menu.

Minister—