Seagulls (Nuisance to Communities)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3499, in the name of David Mundell, on nuisance caused by seagulls.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that seagulls are causing an increasing nuisance in communities across Scotland and believes that the Scottish Executive should develop best practice guidance on how to tackle the problems associated with seagulls.
It is apposite that this debate on how to tackle the nuisance caused by gulls in urban areas should follow a debate on quality of life, which has confirmed the importance that the Scottish Government places on tackling issues such as dog fouling, litter and graffiti.
Although some in the chattering classes poke fun at and sneeringly dismiss the issue, I can assure members that, to those who are faced with the consequences of gulls nesting and roosting in their communities, the matter is a serious one. Gulls are disruptive to the community and their presence is positively alarming for individuals when so-called dive-bombing occurs, which happens when the young are in the nest.
The minister is already aware that gull nuisance is a serious issue in Dumfries. It has prompted Dumfries and Galloway Council to set up a gull focus group, including councillors and officials, which took views from the public. The council has commissioned a number of detailed reports on the gull population in and around Dumfries. It has published a leaflet on the control of roof-nesting gulls. Despite that activity, the council's latest report shows a 9 per cent increase in the gull population overall and a more worrying 32 per cent increase in the population in areas on the outskirts of the town.
A number of options, both lethal and non-lethal, for dealing with gulls are available. The purpose of today's debate is to encourage the Scottish Executive to introduce further best practice guidelines that reflect how the issue has been dealt with effectively across Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom or Europe, instead of requiring individual authorities such as Dumfries and Galloway Council to reinvent the wheel and to deal with the problem themselves. In my view, there is a need to clarify the law. In its submission, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds indicates that it would welcome more guidance clarifying the legal status of wild gulls.
The difficulties that arise with gulls are well documented. The J C environmental consultancy 2001 report on Dumfries makes it clear that the density of gulls in the centre of the town is now sufficiently high to cause considerable fouling of the streets. Many vertical walls of buildings in the town centre are heavily streaked with gull droppings. That, along with the very presence of the birds, makes the town centre much less attractive.
There are also noise problems, especially when gulls are roosting or nesting on roofs of individual homes. The RSPB is right to point out that calls are a natural part of the breeding behaviour of the species, but to the affected householders the noise of gulls calling can be a nightmare.
Another problem is that of birds swooping and so-called dive-bombing. That occurs primarily during the nesting season, especially if chicks fall from the nest. The concept of swooping may amuse some people, but it causes panic in elderly people and is extremely frightening. I know of people who felt unable to leave their homes when the activity was taking place.
Gulls also damage roofs by picking at roof materials. They are responsible for blocking drains, flues and gutters.
A wide range of measures has been taken to remedy the situation and to establish exactly why the birds are in Dumfries in the first place. For a long time it was thought that the presence of gulls in Dumfries town centre was a direct consequence of the town's proximity to the Locharmoss waste disposal landfill site. However, research has indicated that the gulls that use the waste disposal site are younger birds that fly to it directly from the coast and do not inhabit the town centre.
Food is a key reason for the gulls' presence in Dumfries and other communities. It is incredible that some individuals continue to feed the gulls in the streets of Dumfries and other towns. However, the unintentional feeding that comes from littering—especially the disposal of half-eaten takeaways and other foodstuffs—is clearly a significant attraction to gulls. Another problem is the disposal of waste from commercial premises, particularly those that sell food. It is ridiculous that such premises still put waste into the street in plastic bin bags that gulls can easily peck through. I will be interested to hear how the national and local waste disposal strategy to which the minister referred in response to a question that I asked last week will ensure an end to bin bags containing discarded foodstuffs in our streets, which could significantly reduce the lure of town centres for gulls.
A large number of nests are built on flat roofs of commercial properties. Although gull-proofing roofs is to be encouraged, particularly on significant sites, a concerning finding of the 2001 report on Dumfries town centre was that a large number of gulls whose original sites had been disrupted by maintenance work had moved to other sites. It is interesting to note that, when a scheme was operated in Eyemouth that provided grants for gull-proofing roofs, there was a disappointingly poor take-up by property owners.
As I have indicated, many aspects of the debate can seem somewhat surreal. I was not aware—and the minister might not be aware—that gulls are regular clubbers. Large numbers of young potentially breeding birds gather together to find breeding partners. Those clubs act as a centre of attraction for gulls. The vast group at the Safeway store in Dumfries regularly comprises 60 to 120 birds. Although the nests have been removed successfully from the Safeway roof, the club continues to meet. Simply removing the nest or operating anti-nesting measures is not sufficient and efforts have to be made to disrupt breeding activities so that young birds move elsewhere to breed and the number of nesting gulls in our towns is reduced.
The disruption of breeding activities is only one measure to be taken. I commend Dumfries and Galloway Council for the range of measures that it has tried over the years, from using plastic hawks and real hawks to removing nests and disrupting breeding colonies. The various websites of groups such as the Pigeon Control Advisory Service and the British Pest Control Association set out numerous lethal methodologies, such as shooting, and non-lethal methodologies. A wide range of potential solutions emerges.
Although local authorities in Scotland have the responsibility to deal with the issue, they need clearer guidance on what solutions are available, in what circumstances those measures have proved to be effective and how a concerted plan of action can be carried through that does not simply move the gulls elsewhere in a community or to another community.
I seek the minister's views on the current legal position, which I understand to be that gulls can be culled only if there seem to be genuine issues of public health and safety, rather than simply of nuisance. Accordingly, I would be grateful if he would set out when nuisance crosses the line to become a public health and safety issue and in what circumstances he would envisage culling. I make it clear that I do not promote culling as the one simple solution to the problem. I look forward to the minister's response so that we can move forward and help local authorities and communities to find a solution to this long-running problem.
I congratulate David Mundell on raising the issue, because it is serious. Like him, I have noticed that our esteemed press corps has regarded the matter as a bit of a funny subject, but it is no laughing matter for many of the constituents who have contacted me to tell me about the difficulties that they have encountered.
Many people are terrified by the presence of large colonies of gulls—or gows, as we call them in our area. People do not regard them as feathered friends; they see them as a threatening menace. Anyone who has been up close to a gull will know how threatening they can appear. The problem must be particularly difficult for elderly people.
Those of us who have lived in coastal communities for years have seen the problem developing for a considerable time. I have heard a wide range of complaints from constituents who have been dive-bombed—and of course my husband was the subject of a dive-bombing while he was out doing his running training between Lossiemouth and Roseisle on a Sunday. Other people have been dive-bombed while following their normal pursuits of walking, golfing or running, all of which are important aspects of community life in Moray.
David Mundell rightly raised the issue of disturbed sleep. Our bedroom in Lossiemouth has a flat roof. During the summer months, we are regularly awakened at 4 am by the seagulls on our roof. At times, it seems as if they are practising for parts in "Riverdance", because they sound as if they are wearing tackety boots. The noise that they make is quite incredible.
That is a serious point. Hoteliers and owners of bed-and-breakfast establishments in the area have told me that tourists have said that they will not come to the area again. They love Moray, its facilities and its beauty, but they will not come back because of the noise of the seagulls and the menace that they feel is over their heads.
As I said, we have been aware of the problem developing for some time. There are two reasons for the problem. The first relates to the depleted fish stocks. The gows used to follow the boats and they ate what was discarded from the boats. Now that there are fewer and fewer boats ploughing their way through our seas, the birds are moving further inland.
The second reason relates to the arrival of wheelie bins, which deny seagulls access to human rubbish. Seagulls even go for rubbish that has been disposed of sensibly in black bags. Having chased seagulls away from my black bags at half-past 7 one rainy morning, I can tell members that it was not a pleasant experience. My constituents probably thought that I should have been certified.
Seagulls have become urban scavengers, moving further inland all the time. What can we do? David Mundell has made several recommendations with which I agree. People must clean up their litter habits. There should be greater use of the facilities that already exist to fine people for destroying our environment by the careless discarding of rubbish, particularly foodstuffs. We should fine the litter louts a lot more than we do. Facilities exist and I think that they should be strengthened and better enforced.
Councils already have the powers to cull. However, I believe that we all want that to be done humanely. It should also be done by appropriate qualified pest control organisations. After all, if a person has a hive of wasps in their garage or house, they phone the environmental health department and it sends out someone who is qualified to deal with the problem. Why cannot we do the same with gulls?
Other suggestions have included the bird-proofing of buildings or the introduction of scaring measures. As David Mundell pointed out, there is no proof that those measures have worked.
I believe that the Scottish Executive should address the matter seriously. People are reaching the end of their tether. Individuals are not allowed to shoot gulls, but they are being driven to take such measures. Decent, law-abiding citizens feel that they have reached the stage where they must break the law. We must give better guidance to local authorities to ensure that our citizens are not placed in that position.
I congratulate David Mundell on securing tonight's debate. There is more than one way to get to the top of the list for members' business; having a common interest with the business manager is one of the better ones.
The nuisance, noise and mess associated with seagulls—primarily herring and black-backed gulls—is a real problem for everyone in the coastal communities around the north-east of Scotland. The seagull problem has been raised with me many times by constituents and by community councils in the Angus towns of Arbroath and Montrose where the problem is increasing. On a number of occasions I have raised the matter with the local authority.
The local authority has informed me that, in addition to the routine problems, a total of 11 gull attacks were reported to Angus Council in the Montrose area alone in 2001.
Although the problem is treated as a bit of a joke by those who have not experienced it, the noise, mess and threat of attack from gulls can seriously affect the quality of life of people who live and work in the affected areas. In addition to those problems, gulls can give a bad impression to visitors to a town or village. As has been mentioned, that could damage the vital tourism sector.
Up until 1995-96, Angus Council provided a free service for the removal of gulls' nests and eggs from buildings in parts of Arbroath. Although the council acknowledged that that was an effective and humane way of controlling the seagull population, the policy was ultimately discontinued for funding reasons. Since then, it appears that the gull population and the problems that are associated with it have increased.
Earlier this year, in response to local concerns, Angus Council introduced a number of new measures to tackle the problem, including signs requesting the public to refrain from feeding gulls—a major cause of the problem—in areas of particular problems. In addition, the council has published a booklet on controlling roof-nesting gulls and is considering the feasibility of proofing all council-owned property where gulls nest or roost. Aberdeen City Council has also proceeded with that proposal.
In relation to taking action against gulls, local authorities still have a number of options under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. However, best practice guidelines would be helpful and would allow the public to judge effectively the performance of their local authority in that field. I look forward to a positive response from the minister on the many problems that are associated with gulls around Scotland's coasts.
Margaret Ewing referred to her husband's experience of being attacked by seagulls when he was running near Lossiemouth, where I used to love to walk. She has reminded me of an incident that occurred while I was training for the 1985 Edinburgh marathon. As I was running round Arthur's Seat against a stiff breeze, I overtook a rather bemused-looking seagull that was attempting to fly in the same direction. That was a proud moment.
Gulls are a serious problem in parts of Edinburgh. I recently attended a meeting in Bruntsfield at which the residents were up in arms about, and most distressed by, the number of gulls that nest on roofs in that part of Edinburgh. A representative from the City of Edinburgh Council told the meeting that, under present regulations, he could not do anything about the situation, as he was not empowered to do anything about it and did not have a budget that he could use for that purpose. Letters continued to be exchanged and, thankfully, the City of Edinburgh Council changed its mind and was able to give the Bruntsfield residents some assistance in dealing with a problem that was becoming a dangerous pest. Many people who visit Edinburgh stay in bed and breakfasts in the Bruntsfield area and I am sure that they are just as fed up as the people who stay in Scotland's coastal resorts.
That example reinforces David Mundell's point about the need for our local authorities to have clarity, so that they can deal with the growing problem of gulls by allocating budgets and obtaining the best advice. I congratulate David Mundell on securing the debate.
Margaret Ewing mentioned the fishing industry. I will take a holistic view of the issue. One of the problems of the common fisheries policy has been that, during the past 20 to 30 years, our boats have been compelled to dump so many fish over the side that the gulls have virtually forgotten how to fend for themselves. They have learnt to live off offal. That might well be why, in the absence of those benefits, they have started to descend on our towns and villages and to become a pest. It might be possible to establish that scientifically.
I want to draw to the attention of the minister the design of litter bins. I recently visited somewhere further along the coast than Portobello. I noticed that, even though the beach had just been cleaned, there was litter all the way along the seafront. Gulls have worked out how to get into litter bins, pull out the chip packets and consume their contents. Guidance needs to be given to local authorities, because there are other bins that can be used. For example, I think that the bins that we have recently installed in Edinburgh are gull-proof. I certainly would not like to be a gull trying to get into them. We need guidance, and maybe even encouragement, from the Executive on the design of litter bins to make them not only gull-proof but crow-proof, because crows are becoming more prevalent in city centres.
Close encounters of the gull variety. In Edinburgh, just about every night, Hitchcockesque flocks darken the skies, screaming and apparently driving away flocks of the innocent little sparrows that we hardly see any more. I have no scientific evidence for that; only the experience of what I have seen with my own eyes.
In the summer, I took the boat up the Forth to Inchcolm with a friend. We got on to the island and a sign told us to beware of the gulls in the nesting season. It was August, but the birds had not read the notice. We started to walk up the path and had gone only a short distance when a great big fella—I presume that it was a male gull, given its attitude—dived down from the sky and hit my friend on the head. It is funny when it happens to someone else. Our walk was short. We spent the rest of the time watching other people and seeing how far they could penetrate the heather up the hill. They should change the notice on Inchcolm for a start. The birds have not learned to read.
The gulls around Eyemouth are enormous. They strut their stuff. They know something that we seem not to. They are large, aggressive bully boys with two-inch beaks. They do not move over for people. If people have any wisdom they tend to circle round them.
I searched the web for a quotation about gulls, and found this:
"One of my cats had his bottom pecked by a gull recently, showing a breathtaking disregard for the conventional ‘pecking order' attached to physique."
There we go. I am a cat owner. If our cats are not safe, heaven knows.
Gulls are not at fault. The little website told me that gull numbers are down, but the point is that more of them are moving into areas where people are and they are causing trouble. I will not address the fishing issue—it is about scavenging. We are to blame for aggressive gulls, because we are the dirtiest animals on the planet. If members walk up and down any city street they will see pizza cartons with bits of pizza in them. The gulls are waiting for that. Humans are the only animals that I know that litter their own homes. I presume that baby gull watches mummy and daddy gull getting tougher and develops an attitude towards people.
Prevention is better than anything else. However, in the interim, I accept what RSPB Scotland and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have to say—they recognise that there is a problem—about the fact that any way of dealing with these creatures has to be humane. We must deal with them, if only to protect the odd cat.
I agree with Christine Grahame's comments about litter louts. Before this, we had a debate on the quality of life in Scotland. One of the things that we all have to learn is to look after our rubbish a little bit better. In particular, the people who have a tendency to empty their pockets and plastic carry-out containers onto the streets should learn that better.
In effect, gulls can be litter louts. For example, on any Sunday morning in Ayr, fast-food operators put out many plastic bin bags. They end up in a state, because the gulls plummet into them and spread the litter, which creates a war-zone atmosphere around the town.
I make no apology for the fact that my feelings about gulls arise from my personal contacts with constituents. I congratulate David Mundell on his research on the subject. My research is based on the emotive comments that individuals have made to me. Year after year, an old lady was trapped in her home by nesting gulls and had no assistance. The babies in a young family could not be put in their prams because the family feared the gulls. Perhaps the mess on a young woman's washing line is not serious, but it affected her quality of life. Those are the effects of gulls.
The best way to deal with gulls is to try to clear their eggs at nesting time and to discourage them from breeding in urban communities. On a light-hearted note, it might be in local authorities' interest to take up the idea of which I was informed by a fairly knowledgeable fishing expert. In his younger days, he collected black-headed gulls' eggs, which found a market in Harrods. That is a new money-raising scheme for local authorities.
Herring gulls are the main problem.
I accept that the herring gull is the main problem, but the black-headed gull can also be a problem and, where it is, that might be a light-hearted solution.
When I was the member of Parliament for Ayr, the old buildings there such as the tall carpetworks and other derelict buildings were tremendous breeding grounds for gulls. Local authorities had a remit to call for demolition, but that was costly and they were reluctant to go down that line. I ask the minister to take that thought on board and consider whether we can give local authorities powers and financial support to clear up some of the derelict sites in our town centres.
I had not intended to speak. I attended the debate to reduce my ignorance of the subject. I once lived on the coast, but that was in the days when the coast had a thriving fishing industry. Margaret Ewing hit the button: the distribution of pizza round the streets as well as the threat to the fishing industry have had an effect on gulls' habits. My daughter who lives in Aberdeen would not thank me for supporting gulls, because their squawking wakes her up too early, which was a serious problem for her when she was a student.
The debate has been a wee bit scary and like watching a rerun of Hitchcock's "The Birds". Gulls have been described as aggressive and sexually charged. They are day-and-night clubbers that can peck cats' bottoms. However, they cannot fly as fast as Robin Harper can run. In short, gulls are almost as horrible as human beings—but not quite, yet.
I plead that we remember that gulls are nature's creatures. It is our fault if they have overbred. It is our fault if our habits are so disgusting that the poor creatures have had to change their feeding habits and eat our discarded pizzas and other items that are almost too revolting to mention.
If gulls must be culled, it should be done as the SSPCA suggests, by pricking their eggs. Eggs cannot just be removed, because the gulls will go clubbing more and lay more eggs. Please cull them humanely. We should not become a Parliament of gull haters; we should see how we can make progress.
I accept that some people suffer serious nuisance. It was rather brave of David Mundell to risk our jests. I thank him for the debate, which was good for a laugh in parts.
I join members in congratulating David Mundell on securing the debate and I thank members for attending. I think that the debate has been time well spent, despite the comments of some.
While this issue might not rank in importance with health, education and crime, it is, as members have said, a problem for a minority of our fellow citizens. Surely the Scottish Parliament should consider the interests of the minority, who also have rights.
The clear message that I am taking away from tonight's debate is that the seagull problem is very real and that it needs action. We all recognise the vital role—indeed, it is a primary role—of Scotland's local authorities in listening and responding to the needs and views of their local population in this regard.
From what has been said tonight, it is clear that many communities are concerned about the nuisance that is caused by seagulls. I know that because, although I live inland, like Margaret Ewing I represent a constituency that includes one of Scotland's most famous coastlines—the Clyde estuary. Seagulls should be a part of the attraction to locals and visitors alike but, as is the case elsewhere, they are not and we all know why.
As every member has said, the eating habits of the gulls around the Scottish coastline have changed; they have become fast-food junkies. Dorothy-Grace Elder rightly said that it is the people of Scotland and our visitors who have made the gulls that way. I accept the point that Margaret Ewing made about the decline in the fishing industry. I am sure that that is a factor in the problem.
Many of us do not dispose of our litter appropriately. I listened to and was struck by what Robin Harper had to say. Even when people dispose of their litter properly, unless bins are gull-proof, the problem remains. The problem arises from discarded chip pokes, McDonald's cartons and so on, the contents of which have become so much a part of our staple diet that they are now part of the seagulls' diet.
We have to do more to address the problem of litter. That is the real problem; not the seagulls alone. We have heard tonight about the urban gull—the scavenger gull—that has become a problem because of those who litter our streets. If we are to address the problem, it is critical that we cut off the supply of junk food. We can do more to stop the litter being dropped in the first place, but the next stage is to ensure that litter and waste are cleared quickly from our streets. Local authorities have a duty to keep our streets free of litter.
I will respond to the point that was raised by Margaret Ewing and David Mundell. In the normal course of events, it is illegal for any bird, including seagulls, to be killed or harmed by any person. I am sure that we all agree that that is as it should be. Local authorities, however, have a statutory duty to undertake pest control where there is a threat to public health and/or safety. Local authorities have to determine the circumstances and take appropriate action, including, if necessary, the humane control of the pest.
Someone mentioned the presence of gulls in enormous numbers in the fields where pigs are in the open air, living in little huts. It seems to me that in any investigation that the minister undertakes, he should examine whether that is a health hazard to human beings.
I am happy to do so, although the clear evidence that I have received from the Executive's chief medical officer is that although seagulls are a nuisance, they pose no threat to the health of the population. We need, however, to examine the matter further.
The Executive has allocated massive increases in funding for local authorities to improve their waste management. More than £240 million is available in the strategic waste fund over the next three years. Because of that and in view of the additional resources that we have allocated—much of it very recently—I am happy to give Mr Mundell and other members a commitment that the Executive will consolidate the schemes and financial provisions that were referred to by Alex Johnstone and others.
I know that there is good practice out there, but it is not everywhere. Sometimes people may not know what is being done elsewhere. That fact has become increasingly clear to me as I have examined the matter following David Mundell and other members' raising it. I hope that that funding will ease some of the difficulties that local authorities are clearly experiencing in addressing seagull nuisance and the wider problems of litter and waste management.
I do not blame the gulls. In Parliament last Thursday, when David Mundell raised the subject, I made it clear to him that I would consider the option he suggested. Having done so in the interim, I am now convinced that there are benefits in what he and others have proposed tonight. I recognise that there are no simple solutions to the problem, but measures are in place and will have an impact on seagull nuisance. I am happy to work with Scotland's local authorities and members to tackle the problem, and from tonight I shall ask officials to develop the proposition with some urgency and to consult the RSPB for its advice on how best to act.
Meeting closed at 17:45.