Official Report 1099KB pdf
The next item of business is a statement by Jim Fairlie on the urban gulls summit. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
17:11
The issue of urban gulls resonates with many of us across the chamber. The concern has been raised repeatedly by constituents, councils and communities across Scotland. That is why, last Tuesday in Inverness, I convened the Scottish Government’s gulls summit, bringing together key stakeholders from across the country to address that growing challenge.
The summit was a direct response to the increasing public concern about the impact of gull populations in our towns and cities and to the commitment that I made in the chamber, in which I said that I take those concerns seriously and am determined to act to find solutions. For that reason, I worked with NatureScot to address the immediate dangers and issues that are being faced in the Elgin and Inverness areas, where it was clear that an area licence was required to deal with the immediate past nesting season. Outwith those areas, concerns have been expressed more broadly. Therefore, it was clear to me that there was a need for us to look nationally at the next steps. The first of those was the summit that I convened last week.
The primary purpose of the meeting was to listen, learn and begin shaping a co-ordinated national approach at pace. One of the functions of being a Government minister is to use that convening power to bring people into the room, which is particularly important when we have thorny issues—
You do not want them in the room.
Are you going to listen?
Members: Oh!
Minister, please resume your seat. I want to ensure that we have some order in this chamber. Mr Ross, the minister has the floor, and I have already said that there should be no interventions or interruptions. My having to remind members of that has probably used up about 30 seconds. Minister, please resume.
I will repeat what I said. One of the functions of being a Government minister is to use that convening power to bring people into the room. That is particularly important when we have thorny issues to find solutions to and when we have disparate voices and opposing views on how to find those solutions. Understanding those opposing views, hearing what the genuine problems are and taking a considered, balanced approach allows us to find the proportionate solutions. Everyone then has all the information to be able to contribute constructively to finding that common ground. We have done that before on other issues, such as deer management and wildlife management, and it is an approach that I will continue to adopt.
The issues are not easy. Views can be extremely polarised, but only by having those difficult conversations will we find balanced solutions. The Scottish Government chairs those meetings, but it is the other knowledgeable voices who give the help, advice and guidance that are vital to making progress. Let me be clear: I was determined that the summit was to be about finding solutions to the very real and recognised problems. Let me be equally clear that I absolutely acknowledge the strength of feeling on the issue. We have heard from residents, businesses and local authorities from Eyemouth to Inverness and from Dumfries to Aberdeen about the disruption that is caused by gulls, particularly during the nesting season. The complaints are familiar: persistent noise, aggressive defending behaviour, damage to property and risks to public health. Those concerns are real, and I wish to assure the Parliament that they are being taken seriously and that the Government will take targeted action where necessary.
We must recognise that gulls are a protected species for a very valid reason. Many gulls, including the herring gull and the great black-backed gull, are in significant decline. In particular, the herring gull population has halved since the 1980s. These birds face threats from climate change, overfishing, habitat loss and the devastation of avian flu.
The summit brought together those who needed to be in the room: local authorities, housing associations, representatives of business, waste experts, community groups, scientists and NatureScot. It was a constructive forum for sharing practical solutions, identifying knowledge gaps and laying the groundwork for a co-ordinated response. The summit was the first step in our work on gull issues, but I was very pleased with the progress that was made there, and I will outline momentarily the work that we will be taking forward over the coming months.
We must now shift our focus from reactive control to preventive management—and we must do so urgently, ahead of next year’s breeding season. That means tackling the root causes: the availability of food and nesting sites in urban areas. Although that may sound straightforward, it will require a co-ordinated effort across Government, local authorities, health boards, housing associations and individual households.
It is clear that, although many are working hard to mitigate gull impacts, efforts are fragmented and often ineffective, so we need to align our approach. Over the coming months, we will focus on five key areas.
On local engagement, NatureScot will lead a series of regional round-table events in areas most affected by gull-related issues. They will bring together local stakeholders to agree on collaborative action ahead of the next breeding season. NatureScot will be listening to and working with local people.
On best practice, last week I announced an initial £100,000 from NatureScot to support local authorities to develop proactive and collaborative management of gulls. NatureScot will work with local authorities to develop a co-ordinated gull management plan. That will sit alongside work on the Highland Council project. Highland Council and NatureScot have jointly committed to the development and delivery of pilot gull management for the city of Inverness. We will then draw on successful examples, such as the work in Inverness, to inform national best practice.
The summit also highlighted a significant gap in our understanding of gull behaviour and ecology. We will work to fill such gaps through research and data collection, ensuring that our interventions are informed and effective. Alongside short-term deterrents, we must also consider long-term design solutions. Making our buildings less attractive to gulls through thoughtful planning, restoration and retrofitting will be key. There are good pieces of work that we can look to, from roof structures on new builds and refurbishments to minimise the attraction to nesting gulls, to planning conditions for commercial businesses and food outlets that require effective waste management.
There must also be public awareness. Access to food is one of the biggest drivers of gull presence in urban areas. We heard at the summit about successful efforts in Inverness to remove commercial bins from streets, which was effective both in reducing food sources and in improving the city centre experience. We will work with local authorities to develop public awareness campaigns that encourage responsible waste disposal and discourage the feeding of gulls.
We also heard at the summit about the ways in which we can deter gulls from swooping, using creative but effective methods of putting them off takeaway boxes and building confidence among the public when people are out and about. We will be working with local communities to raise awareness of that.
Licensing is an essential part of managing the problem. During the summit, we discussed the licensing regime that is administered by NatureScot. I recognise the frustrations that have been voiced by communities and elected members about its complexity and inconsistency. I have raised those concerns directly with NatureScot, and I expect to see improvements in clarity, responsiveness and practical guidance. Licences for gull control will be issued where there is a demonstrable risk to public health and safety, where they can be issued within the legislation and with the practicality that we expect from a public body working on behalf of the Government and, ultimately, our constituents. NatureScot will be working to support licence applications earlier in the year, with a focus on licensing in the areas where health and safety needs are highest.
The key thing now is that we move forward constructively and at pace, with a shared commitment to finding solutions. I thank everyone who participated in the summit, and I invite members across the Parliament to engage with the work ahead in a similar collaborative way. A summary of the summit’s findings and next steps will be published shortly, and I will welcome input from all parties that is constructive and forward looking.
Gulls are part of Scotland’s natural heritage, but I know how serious the issues are that people are facing. Although gulls are, increasingly, part of our urban landscape, we must manage their presence responsibly and effectively. We must work together to find solutions that recognise the complexities around gull populations, and those solutions must work for the people who are living with the negative effects of gulls every day. With collaboration, evidence and community support, I believe that we can do just that.
The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. It would be helpful if those members who seek to ask a question were to press their request-to-speak button.
17:20
First, we had the stushie around the Government not wanting to provide that statement at all. Then, we had the sham of the summit itself. I have been contacted by so many individuals—councillors, community councillors, residents associations and others—who were bitterly disappointed and, frankly, angry that the minister excluded them from the meeting and refused to listen to their concerns.
I have to say that the feedback that I have had from those who did attend was that it was a frustrating waste of time. In his statement, the minister mentioned practical solutions that were discussed. He did not give all the detail about it. Let me account to the chamber for some of those practical solutions that were genuinely made at that summit.
To deter the gulls, when people are walking down a high street, they should walk around waving their arms, because that will stop the gulls swooping on them. That is, literally, what they were told.
The minister mentioned takeaway boxes and what can be done to stop the gulls going for them. He did not say that the solution was to draw on eyes—because gulls are scared of being stared at and, therefore, they will not swoop down for a takeaway box if someone has drawn eyes on it. It would be funny if it was not so serious. It is utter nonsense. It is this chaotic and comical approach from the Government and its quango, NatureScot, that is—
Mr Ross, you need to ask your question. You are over your time.
My question to the minister is this. After the summit, he was speaking about how poorly NatureScot had determined licences. He said that it was asking for “ridiculous evidence or proof”. He said that he himself had received
“inadequate answers from NatureScot as to why several things were being done in a certain way.”
Finally, he said that
“It was ludicrous”
that NatureScot was
“asking people to take a photograph of a newspaper beside a nest so that they could actually determine what day it was on”—
Can I have your question, please, Mr Ross?
Those are the minister’s words—it is
“completely and utterly ludicrous and I absolutely accept that.”
Minister, can you tell us why you still defend NatureScot having the dual role of conserving bird numbers and determining licence applications when, in your own words, it is “utterly ludicrous” in its determination?
Always speak through the chair.
Let us be clear: the jokers on the other side of the chamber are not taking this seriously. There was never a request for a statement until it came in, and I accepted that request, which is why I am standing here right now.
Jamie Hepburn might disagree.
There was never a request for a statement, as Mr Ross absolutely knows. [Interruption.]
Members, let us hear the minister.
Mr Ross talks about people who were not represented at the summit. Requests for representation were sent out to people who needed to be in the room. What we did not need at that summit was grandstanding, which is what Mr Ross has done from the start of this entire issue coming to the chamber. I refuse to be drawn in to his grandstanding. Absolutely, those people were represented.
On my response to NatureScot, he is correct: some of the responses that came back from NatureScot were ludicrous. I have now spoken to NatureScot and said that we need to find practical solutions. Yes, when some of the scientific evidence was brought forward at the summit, it talked about googly eyes on takeaway boxes.
Don’t repeat it!
Members, please.
Yes, it talked about people waving their arms in order to distract birds, and, yes, it talked about staring at seagulls because seagulls do not like eye contact. [Interruption.] The Conservative members can sit and laugh. They can joke about this, but they are the ones who brought the matter to the chamber. If they want to have a serious discussion—[Interruption.]
Members!
If they want to have a serious discussion, let us have a serious discussion. Clearly, not one of them understands the complexity of a bird’s brain, which is what we are talking about.
We are living beside seagulls. We have seagulls in our midst. There will be licensable purposes, as we have already discussed. However, we will not go down the route that Douglas Ross clearly wants us to go down, which is to have a mass slaughter of a bird that is already in decline. We will not go down that route, and we will continue to take a balanced approach and to ensure that we conserve bird numbers.
I, too, wish that the summit had been more inclusive—
I cannot hear, Presiding Officer. Will you ask Conservative members to please be quiet?
Minister, I am in the chair, and I will deal with things. [Interruption.] I heard you, minister.
Please sit down for a second, Ms Grant. I have already said to members that, if they want to have the opportunity to ask the questions that they really want to ask, we need to have some order. Under the standing orders of this Parliament, we need to show courtesy and respect.
I, too, wish that the summit had been more inclusive. For example, Councillor John Divers, who has been trying to find a solution to the problem in Elgin for years and who has a wealth of knowledge and experience, should have been involved.
Is the minister aware that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee has said that the national population estimates of herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls from the seabird 2000 census are considered unreliable because of the likely underestimation of roof-nesting gull numbers? Is he also aware that it takes NatureScot six weeks to approve a licence to remove eggs and nests but that the gestation period for the eggs is only four weeks? Those birds will have flown long before a licence is approved.
We want to protect gulls in their natural environment, but there are genuine public safety concerns in urban areas, so will the minister work with communities, be more open minded and inclusive, hear the concerns that they have and take action that will keep people safe?
Rhoda Grant has raised a number of points. I have the seabirds count data, which shows the percentage change between 2000 and 2020-21. Black-headed gull numbers have gone down by 75 per cent, common gull numbers have gone down by 53 per cent, lesser black-backed gull numbers have gone down by 48 per cent, herring gull numbers have gone down by 44 per cent and great black-backed gull numbers have gone down by 63 per cent.
Those are the figures for gulls in their natural environment. I absolutely accept that numbers have gone up in urban areas, for the reasons that I outlined in my statement. We have created areas that are safe for nesting and where there is a food source, which is exactly what the birds are looking for. The numbers of gulls in their natural habitat have declined as a result of overfishing, climate change and avian influenza.
With regard to Rhoda Grant’s point about community engagement, I have already said that NatureScot will be holding a series of summits across the country to identify specific areas where there are specific problems and to find solutions long before we get to the nesting season, so that we do not face the issue in relation to gestation. It is a case of preventing birds from nesting in such areas in the first place, rather than trying to take nests out after the nesting season has started.
I advise the chamber that 11 members seek to pose a question. I would like to take all 11, but we need succinct questions and succinct responses.
Gulls are indeed a nuisance, but there will be gulls only where there is easy food, which is often supplied by our own throwaway waste. No food, no urban gulls—that is it.
Will the minister confirm that, even after gull questions and a gull summit, it was the Tories—who opposed us talking about Gaza—who insisted on taking up more precious parliamentary time talking about gulls? Given that there are folk who will not be able to afford food or heating this winter, will this be the last time that we use our valuable parliamentary time talking about gulls? It is making a mockery of this place.
It is not me who decides what the business is in this place—it is the business bureau that does that. However, I take on board Christine Grahame’s point. I have had representations made to me that I am wasting my time standing here, but I do not believe that I am. We have had representations from people across the country, including from numerous MSPs, who have said that they have a problem with gulls, which is why I have addressed the issue. I hope that we will find solutions.
Jim Fairlie called the gull summit a summit for everyone in Scotland affected by the issue, but his statement said that it was restricted to
“those who needed to be in the room.”
Minister, it was a talking shop in the north for quangos.
The minister pretends that he wants to reach common ground, but he will use ministerial powers to bring people into the room. He says that the Government has a record of reaching common ground. How can my constituents trust his Government on its record? It is doing things on its terms. The Government is overreaching. It is not listening to injured people, scarred visitors and affected businesses in Eyemouth and other towns in the Borders. A national approach is thoroughly wrong. Last July, I raised the issue—
We need a question, Ms Hamilton.
—and suggested a pilot scheme. I am coming to the question, thank you.
Yes, but please come to the question now, Ms Hamilton.
Residents and businesses in Eyemouth asked to be part of the summit—
Ms Hamilton, please.
I would like to invite the minister to my own round table to discuss a specific pilot in Eyemouth. Will he come?
As I have laid out, I have instructed NatureScot to hold a series of regional round-table events. If Ms Hamilton wants to attend one of those, she is absolutely entitled to do so. The events will be inclusive and collaborative and will work with people across the sector who are looking for solutions.
As members can imagine, urban gulls are a hot topic in my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast. Not long after I was elected, I set up a gull working group with local authorities and experts to share best practice, with the recognition that each community faces different challenges. We recognise that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach. What support can the Scottish Government give to local authorities for the bespoke solutions that are needed?
One of the bespoke things that we are looking at is that £100,000 is being immediately made available to assist local authorities to develop area-wide gull-management approaches. The area-wide approach will give a better understanding of gull populations and their movements at a local level. It will identify the range of measures that could be practically applied in a local area. It will identify high-impact areas and develop a strategic view as to where and how gulls can be moved on from areas of high impact, and it will provide locally co-ordinated, area-based licensing approaches.
That is the beginning of a process, and the funding will help to support that work and get it under way. I have outlined other actions that we will take following the gull summit, and I will continue to consider any other support that is required thereafter.
Emily Burton, who is a senior conservation officer at the Scottish Seabird Centre in North Berwick and who was at the summit, said:
“Local authorities, businesses, and individuals need consistent and clear advice on tried and tested, effective solutions for living alongside gulls, together with information about where funding can be found to support them.”
Will the minister confirm that the Scottish Government will step up to the role of facilitating consistent and clear advice and ensure that, beyond the £100,000 that he mentioned, funding is there to support solutions?
The first part of the process was holding the summit, and the second part is taking the five steps that I outlined. As I just said, the £100,000 will get that process up and running. I have already stated that I am more than happy to look at what other mitigation measures we need once we go through the process.
Will the minister outline what work the Scottish Government has done with local education authorities and external organisations to educate children and young people about acting appropriately around gulls, such as not feeding urban gulls, which encourages their flocking, and dealing with gull chicks?
Keep Scotland Beautiful has run campaigns and education events that have covered public awareness on not feeding gulls. That includes the my beach, your beach campaign, which ran from 2018 to 2023. Through NatureScot, we have supported projects in Inverness and St Andrews to increase public awareness of the importance of not feeding gulls and to engage a range of audiences, including children and young people, through public communications. We recognise that that is a key part of making our urban areas less appealing to gulls, and a national awareness campaign that includes encouraging people not to feed gulls will be central to our approach. NatureScot will continue to work with local authorities and education authorities, alongside others, to explore opportunities to increase awareness among young people specifically.
Gulls are in overall decline in Scotland. Three out of five of the species face an extinction risk. Gull populations are increasing in urban areas because of the availability of food but, in the natural environment, food sources are declining because of climate change and overfishing, and natural breeding sites are also declining. What action, summits and funding will be available to ensure that gulls have a home and food in the natural environment, where they belong?
As I have said, that is part of the process that we are going through right now. We are looking at the complexity of gull movements and gull populations—that will all be part of our thinking as we go forward, and I hope that we will get the correct answers so that we can ensure that we have a supported population of gulls, as well as safe towns and cities.
The reaction from local authorities, councils and other agencies to attacks has often been too slow, bureaucratic and complicated, and people just give up as a result. Can the minister guarantee that, after this campaign, there will be a swift and simple process that people can follow to get action taken? That ultimately has to be the aim.
I am disappointed in Willie Rennie’s question, because he is asking for simple solutions to a complex question. Mr Rennie is talking about the licence application process. However, it is not simply a case of saying, “Yeah, there’s gulls there—knock them out.” That is not what it is about. It is about ensuring that all the appropriate actions have been taken to put in place other mitigations and that people have tried every other method of removing the gulls. If it then comes to removing a gulls’ nest, eggs and chicks, NatureScot should be in a position to do that as long as there is a health and safety reason for doing so.
Minister, you have previously said that the summit allowed for the sharing of practical solutions, learning from real-world examples and identifying
“gaps in current policies to develop a co-ordinated approach.”
Can you share some of the learning and solutions that were discussed and identified as a result of the summit? I have a problem with gulls in my constituency at certain times of the year.
Always through the chair.
The discussions were around the use of alternatives such as netting, spikes, predator eyes, food waste management and hawking. It was recognised that each location’s circumstances are unique, albeit that there are some common themes.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and multiple tools and techniques will be required in order to get a resolution. A collaborative approach between NatureScot, local authorities, business improvement districts and wider community groups is needed, while other local forums will take place in order to include organisations that are not represented on the day.
There will be a national awareness campaign to encourage people not to feed gulls, because that is central, too. There was agreement on the development of area-based management and a commitment from NatureScot to provide funding to enable local actions to be progressed.
I have to say that, in my time representing Coatbridge and Chryston, seagulls have never been raised with me as an issue. Perhaps that is not surprising, given the effects of the cost of living and austerity in my constituency in recent years. However, I am interested in the issue. Will the minister set out some of the circumstances in which NatureScot can issue control licences, and will he say what thresholds would have to be reached before that would take place?
As I just laid out to Willie Rennie, all applications have to be assessed on their own merits—there is no simple solution to a complex problem. All licences that are issued need to meet the licence criteria as stated in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Those include
“for the purposes of preserving public health or ... safety”.
There are other purposes in the legislation, but that is the principal one for gulls in urban areas. It is necessary to identify the hazard, who is being harmed and what the mitigation measures are. There should be “no other satisfactory solution” than licensed control. In other words, other relevant non-licensable solutions should have been tried or discounted, examples of which might include netting, spikes, management of food waste and so on. NatureScot would then have to consider, as a matter of policy, the impact of issuing a licence on the conservation status of the species, in accordance with Scotland’s commitments in relation to other conservation legislation and international agreements.
An elderly man came to the Co-op every day for his newspaper. In June, a seagull attacked him. He fell and broke his hip. He does not leave the house now.
When I hear stories like that, I cannot understand why no action is being taken. However, the minister has form on this, because the previous group that he set up to look at protected species—the strategic wildlife and land management forum, which was announced to great fanfare at the Royal Highland Show in 2024—has achieved nothing. Why, then, should I have any confidence that the minister’s seagull summits will actually do anything?
There is a serious point regarding the issue that Tim Eagle has raised. There are, absolutely, circumstances in which gulls are causing harm to people. That has never been denied. I have never denied it, and nor has the Government—we absolutely accept that that is an issue.
The member referred to the strategic wildlife and land management forum. He is not in the room, because we do not want grandstanding, but in that forum we have intense discussions and hear polarised opinions in order to find solutions to the issues that we face. We have managed to do that with common ground and deer management, and we are now in the position where we can get people in the room to look at practical solutions and find ways to make things work better. Such forums do not need the kind of political grandstanding that we are seeing from Conservative members on my left.
The minister’s argument rests on the proposition that gulls are in decline, but a freedom of information response to my constituent and a report from an expert who was present at the summit both indicate that the population has merely switched from traditional nesting environments to urban areas and that there is no data for urban gull populations. Will the minister place all the available information in the Scottish Parliament information centre so that we can get to the bottom of it? The information is disputed.
On a practical level, the business improvement districts were assured last year by NatureScot that there would be a new and better system in place by December, yet, in December, they were told that the plans had been scrapped. Will business improvement districts get area licences, and will the rules revert to those that were applied in 2023, which struck a reasonable balance?
I do not know the details of Fergus Ewing’s last point, about the plans being scrapped, so I will look into it and will come back to the member with a written answer.
I have the numbers here, in front of me, and it is absolutely crystal clear that, in their natural environment, gulls are declining at an alarming rate. However, they are increasing in urban settings because of all the issues that I laid out in my statement. Although Fergus Ewing is disputing the increase in the number of gulls in urban settings, overall, their numbers are declining. I will take up his point about the methodology and will come back to him in writing.
There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.
Previous
Protecting Scotland’s Fire ServiceNext
Business Motions