I ask those who are leaving the public gallery to do so as quickly and quietly as possible as we move to the next item of business, which is a members’ business debate in the name of Douglas Ross on motion S6M-17969, on action to address the impact of gulls in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
I invite Douglas Ross to speak for about seven minutes in opening the debate.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the reported changes to the approach taken for granting licences to control gulls in recent years by NatureScot, which, it understands, has led to fewer licences being approved, as demonstrated by 2,041 licences being granted in 2023, but this figure falling to 505 in 2024; understands that communities and businesses in Moray, Nairn and Inverness have had significant problems with gulls in recent years, but that many communities across Scotland also experience similar problems; believes that Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) funding and Common Good Funds should not have to be spent on continually seeking licences to control gulls that display dangerous and aggressive behaviour that are a risk to all, but particularly the young and older people; is concerned that NatureScot reportedly does not fully acknowledge and respect the views of local people and businesses when considering applications to control gulls that are causing significant problems; notes the calls for more robust action from the Scottish Government and NatureScot to protect humans and businesses from what it sees as the menace of dangerous gulls, including the Scottish Ministers taking action through a section 11 order under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, and further notes the calls for a review by the Scottish Government, preceded by a public consultation on the grounds for legal control, with a view to permitting control to tackle significant nuisance caused by gulls, and on the separation of the licensing of control measures and the nature species conservancy functions of NatureScot, in light of reports of an inherent potential conflict between the two and widespread concerns of many constituents that NatureScot neglects the former while preferring the latter.
12:48
The people who are leaving the public gallery do not know what they are missing, because I am sure that this will be an excellent debate on gulls. A timeframe of seven minutes is quite tight, because, since the debate was announced, I have been inundated with correspondence about the issue. Following on from Stephen Kerr’s heroic efforts in the past couple of days, I have been thinking that I might look for opportunities to lodge stage 3 amendments about gulls when we debate legislation in order to allow us even more time to discuss the subject, but I will base that on the minister’s remarks later, because I hope that we will make some progress.
Some people smirk when we say that the Parliament will be debating the issue of gulls, but it is extremely serious, which is why I am surprised that this is only the second members’ business debate on the menace of gulls since the Scottish Parliament was re-established, in 1999. The previous debate was held in 2002 and was also led by a Conservative member, my colleague and friend David Mundell. There was clearly an issue back then, because the motion that was debated said:
“seagulls are causing an increasing nuisance”.
That was in 2002, but, 23 years on, we are still discussing the subject.
I particularly thank Fergus Ewing for the work that we have done together on the matter in recent months. When I was told that I had the opportunity to debate gulls today, I first checked with Fergus that he would be here and able to contribute, because he has put in significant effort on the matter in his constituency and has worked very well on a cross-party basis to deliver for his constituents.
I will raise some of the cases that have been highlighted to me. This morning, Moray Firth Radio reported the case of a retired couple in Hopeman. That husband and wife are now worried about going down Forsyth Street in Hopeman, because they are continually dive-bombed every time they go there. They are worried about going out of their home.
Last year, a constituent came to my surgery in Miltonduff to explain that she could not leave her house. She has a small dog, and every time they left the house they were attacked by gulls that were nesting on her property. Such was the severity of the problem that she was given licences and permission to remove up to 10 nests every year, but the cost of getting someone in to remove a nest is £200 a time. That retired lady, who is now 73, has to spend £2,000 of her money to remove those nests every year. That is why this is an issue, and it is a growing issue.
Over the past couple of weeks, I have spoken to a number of my Scottish Conservative councillor colleagues about the issue. Councillor Isabelle MacKenzie has spoken about the growing issue in the Crown area, where she lives and which she represents. She said that stonemasons are reporting problems with being able to do their work. Councillor Babs Jarvie in Nairn spoke about the huge issues for local people and for tourists who come to Nairn. If anyone looks at the BBC news today, they will see a story about the impact of gulls in Nairn and the increasing problem there in recent years.
In my area of Moray, Councillor Pete Bloomfield and Councillor Elaine Kirby have raised issues in their council ward in Elgin. Pete Bloomfield told me a terrible story, which I have recited to the minister, about a lady who fell outside her house as a result of a gull attack, broke her leg, went to hospital, came out of hospital and was attacked again.
Although Councillor Amber Dunbar said that she has not had any specific cases involving injuries to people, she highlighted the very good point that it is sometimes not just about physical injuries, because there is also a mental health impact. The gulls are so noisy, particularly early in the morning but throughout the day, that people end up having mental health issues because they cannot get to sleep at night. They are woken early in the morning, and shift workers cannot get to sleep at all during the day. She also made the point that, although NatureScot is there to protect and conserve bird numbers, people are seeing a reduction in the number of garden birds in areas that are dominated by gulls.
I am grateful to everyone who has provided briefings for the debate, but I have to highlight the briefing that came from the charity OneKind. It says that we should avoid value-laden language and that referring to gulls as a menace or a nuisance and to their behaviour as mugging or dive-bombing creates and reinforces a perception that gulls are acting maliciously and that their presence is a problem. Well, I say that these gulls are a menace. They are dive-bombing and they are a problem.
I will address the language that is used about gulls in my speech.
I did not hear that properly. I will give way to Christine Grahame again if she wants to repeat what she said.
I do not agree with those terms, and I will address them in a short defence—a cautious defence—of the common gull.
Christine Grahame is perfectly able to do that, but I strongly disagree. They are a menace. My constituent in Hopeman who was on the radio today used the phrase “dive-bombing” because they are being dive-bombed by these birds.
I want to highlight the work that is being done by business improvement districts. The work that Fergus Ewing and I have done together has been ably aided by the BIDs in Nairn and Inverness. They are going above and beyond for their members to get schemes in place, but it is costing a fortune. The motion also mentions just how much money is being spent on trying to get licences and control the birds. Tens of thousands of pounds are being spent by business improvement districts, common good funds and community councils. That huge amount of money could be better spent on other local projects or on improving the environment for local businesses, but it has to be spent on tackling this issue.
I encourage people in the strongest possible terms, as I am sure the minister will, to stop feeding these birds and to stop leaving rubbish out, because that causes part of the problem. I am not ignoring that; I am reinforcing it.
There is also an issue with the licensing scheme, as it is proving far too complex, difficult and expensive to get licences.
I come to the debate not just with complaints but with solutions. We need to keep a record of the number of attacks on people by gulls. I put that to the minister last week at portfolio question time on rural affairs, land reform and islands, and I was encouraged by his response. However, I wonder how on earth NatureScot can refuse applications by saying that the gulls in a particular area are not a health and safety risk when it is not even recording how many people are being injured in attacks by gulls.
Conversely, NatureScot does record injuries and deaths—not of people but of birds. If birds go into wind turbines, NatureScot keeps a record of that, but it does not keep any record of people being injured. I think that it has to look at that.
I want NatureScot’s role to be very much separate. It is currently clearly conflicted between conserving and preserving bird numbers and being the agency that deliberates on, and rejects or approves, applications to control birds. It is no longer possible for NatureScot to do that dual role, so I hope that the minister will consider separating those roles. We need action from the Government, because, 23 years on from the previous members’ business debate on the subject, gulls are still an increasing problem in our communities. They are causing a nuisance, and people want action.
Given the interest in this subject, it is likely that we will need to extend the debate, but I am conscious that afternoon business starts at 2 o’clock, so I would be grateful if members would stick to their four minutes, or even less.
12:56
I thank Douglas Ross for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is good to have the opportunity to explore what more can be done to deal with local seagull issues, many of which have been reported to me as well.
I live next to an industrial estate in Inverness, so I absolutely understand the issues that seagulls can cause in residential areas in particular. My mother always used a different name for them that many Highlanders would recognise, but I will not repeat it in the chamber.
I receive a disproportionate number of complaints about these birds in certain communities. It is not just about the noise and the mess that they make, and the fact that they are a nuisance; I am aware that people have been injured and that property has been damaged. Douglas Ross mentioned some extreme incidents, which clearly have a massive impact on people’s lives.
Therefore, it is important that councils and their partners are able to react more quickly when issues emerge. By the time an issue is noticed and then reported and responded to, it is often past the point at which measures such as targeting eggs can be considered and can be effective. From then on, it is hard to row back on the disruption, rather than just limiting how much worse it gets year on year.
NatureScot issues licences as a last resort when there are issues of public safety. However, between there being no issues and the need to take measures as a last resort, there are opportunities for us to prevent the problem from becoming dire. When I look out of my kitchen window, I can see seagulls nesting on the spikes that are there to drive them away, so perhaps we need to reconsider what measures are actually effective and which measures local councils and partners should be allowed to undertake.
I know that the Inverness and Nairn business improvement districts often manage to target seagull issues successfully, and I thank them for that. People do not very often reach out to me, as an MSP, to share good news or positive feedback, but I have heard repeatedly that the BIDs’ work in partnership with tenants associations, businesses and building owners has often meant that good progress is made and people’s contributions are listened to.
However, as somebody who served as a councillor six years ago and was, at that time, involved in the decision—as mentioned in Douglas Ross’s motion—to continue to award funding from the Inverness common good fund to tackle the problem, I know that progress feels very slow. I have also had constituents write in with concerns about the approaches that are taken in destroying eggs. They feel that it is not always a last resort but sometimes the only option available.
In Nairn, one person said to me that it is usually human behaviour that she witnesses that encourages the birds. She often finds people, whether they are locals or tourists, littering or intentionally feeding the seagulls. We cannot blame those birds for moving in when they get an easy meal, but we can do more to discourage such behaviour by humans.
NatureScot has a duty to protect the species. It is rare, but not unheard of, that a constituent wants to kill the birds indiscriminately, with no regard to the species being able to survive. People do not want the extreme and dangerous behaviour that takes place when the situation is allowed to get out of control.
I agree with colleagues that we need to give local communities a full range of options to deal with gulls and prevent situations from getting out of control, when the birds have started to pose a risk and when concerns have been raised. I look forward to hearing the minister’s response to the suggestions.
13:00
Their relentless and noisy squawking and aggressive behaviour have made them a nuisance across Scotland. No, I am not referring to the nationalists—on this final sitting day before summer recess, I hope that, for once, we can part on the best of terms; I am talking about the growing scourge of gulls, particularly in my constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries, where those wild flappers seem to rule the roost and, frankly, appear to revel in the misery that they cause in communities such as Kirkcudbright, Stranraer and Dumfries.
I thank my Conservative colleague Douglas Ross for securing the debate. The issue is long overdue serious attention.
We have heard the stories of elderly residents being attacked outside their homes and children being left bloodied by swooping gulls. This is no longer about just a sensational headline; it is a growing public safety risk that is spreading far beyond our coastal towns and into urban centres across Scotland.
These birds are no longer confined to our beaches. They are now snatching fish and chips, hamburgers and even crisps from outside shop fronts. They have adapted to urban life and are thriving on it. As researchers such as Helen Wilson at Durham University have pointed out, this is about not necessarily rising gull numbers but shifting behaviour. Urban environments now offer more reliable food sources and fewer natural predators. With changes in fishing practices, more violent winter storms and warming seas, gulls are abandoning their traditional habitats and heading inland.
Although gulls may be adapting, our system for managing them is not. NatureScot’s current approach to licensing is simply not fit for purpose. I say that not just as a constituency MSP but because I echo the serious concerns that Scottish Land & Estates raised in its recent briefing. SLE members, who are among the primary applicants for a species control licence, have reported a litany of issues with NatureScot’s licensing regime, including unrealistic demands for evidence of species impact, excessive delays in processing applications, a narrow and insufficient list of species that are eligible for control, licensing officers making decisions beyond their remit and a lack of understanding of the practicalities of wildlife management.
I will give one example. In the south of Scotland, an estate was told that it could not control ravens near a site of special scientific interest due to potential disturbance to breeding waders. Instead, it was advised to use gas guns and bangers. That method would have caused far more disruption than a single moderated shot. The approach is not logical, and it is counterproductive.
In another case, NatureScot unlawfully advised an increase in raven control under a livestock protection licence, when the actual concern was the protection of ground-nesting birds. In implementing the new grouse-shooting licensing scheme, it misinterpreted the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 and unlawfully requested estate boundary licences. Later, it was forced to backtrack. That was not a one-off. There is a pattern of poor decision making that is actively undermining land managers’ ability to protect people, livestock and biodiversity.
In my constituency, councillors spend upwards of £85,000 a year on trying to manage gulls—money that could be far better spent if the licensing system worked. NatureScot insists that the lethal control method should be a last resort but, when non-lethal methods fail, as they often do, communities are left without any viable options. The result is growing frustration, rising costs and a real risk to public safety. In Dumfries, residents have even raised a petition to demand action.
Businesses are being targeted and people are being harassed, yet the licensing process remains slow, opaque and overly restrictive. We need a system that works, is easy to access, proportionate and risk based, is grounded in practical understanding and, above all, is responsive to the needs of each and every community.
Licences should be easy to obtain when there is clear evidence of harm. They should be difficult to lose unless misused and they should be rationally connected to a licensable purpose, not bogged down in bureaucratic overreach. This is not about demonising wildlife or gulls. It is about restoring balance; protecting people, property and public health; and ensuring that our licensing bodies are equipped and willing to act on public safety. The status quo is not working and, if we do not act now, the consequences could be far more serious than a stolen sandwich.
13:04
I thank Douglas Ross for securing the debate. I pay tribute to the work of Councillors Sandy Keith and John Divers in Moray, who for many years have been wrestling with problems caused by seagulls in Elgin. We need to be clear that the birds are not acting maliciously; they are simply looking for food and trying to protect their young.
Urban seagulls have been causing a major problem and often present a danger to the public. We have all witnessed them snatching food out of unsuspecting people’s hands, which can be dangerous. As the birds swoop and snatch, they can hurt people. That is a greater issue for older people and children, as those more vulnerable individuals can be knocked down and seriously injured. We have seen cases of people being injured or left bleeding after seagulls have swooped on them. I also remember hearing about how the kind operators of one food outlet offered to replace the lunches of schoolchildren when gulls had snatched their food from their hands. As we all know, such problems get worse when seagulls have chicks. They are good parents, and, as their young begin to fledge, they become even more protective. Anyone who inadvertently gets close to a fledgling chick is likely to be attacked, which can cause them injury and fear.
One of my constituents contacted NatureScot about the issue. Its reply was that it would not grant a licence for nest and egg removal where gulls were simply creating a nuisance; it would do so only if there were a public health and safety issue. Even then, nest and egg removal would be done only as a last resort. NatureScot also said that gull numbers were in decline. That might be so in the birds’ normal habitat, but it does not feel as though it is the case in urban areas, where the danger that they cause to the public is increasing.
We need to hear more from the Government on the crucial issue of approval of licences. Does Rhoda Grant agree that, in many cases where NatureScot rejects applications, the alternatives that it offers are simply unworkable? For example, it told people to use an umbrella to get into a store in Inverness that was suffering from the problem. It is not looking at reasonable alternatives.
Ms Grant, I can give you the time back for the intervention.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I absolutely agree with Douglas Ross’s point. The same constituent of mine who wrote to NatureScot was told to approach local government, because the issue was one for it to resolve. They were told that, rather than NatureScot removing seagulls’ eggs and nests, councils need to stop people dropping food in the street and littering, and they need to put in place better bins that gulls cannot get into.
It seems that NatureScot is saying that it will not do anything because seagull numbers are falling. However, if it were so concerned about those falling numbers, its response would not be to advise people to remove food sources. It seems that it is really trying to ensure that somebody else takes action, and it is passing the buck. We cannot continue in that way, and we have to make sure that things change, because the issue presents a danger to the public.
As Emma Roddick mentioned, almost 20 years ago in Inverness, there was a sharp increase in gulls coming into the city, following the closure of a nearby landfill site. The council took measures to remove nests under licence, but it also considered other deterrents that were not deadly to birds, all of which helped. Putting together all the available tools and approaches alongside the licensed removal of nests does work, including using sonar and lasers and deploying birds of prey. All of those strategies will have to be considered if towns such as Elgin, Inverness and many others are to receive timely intervention.
The longer the debate has gone on, the more we have heard that there is a role for the Scottish National Party Government to better facilitate an effective relationship whereby NatureScot and local authorities can work together to use all the tools that are at their disposal. Of course, that will need funding, and we know that local authorities have been underfunded for years. It is simply not right for NatureScot to pass on its responsibility.
I hope that, in closing the debate, the minister will address how the Government could step in to ensure that all the organisations concerned can manage the danger that is caused by seagulls attacking people, because that is a public health issue.
13:09
I thank Douglas Ross for lodging the motion for debate. I certainly acknowledge that there are areas where we need more effective management and consideration of how we can co-exist with gull populations, but I hope that Douglas Ross will acknowledge that, in the 23 years since Parliament last debated the topic, herring gull populations have collapsed in Scotland—numbers have halved since the 1980s. There are huge pressures on our seabirds. Part of the reason why gulls are moving more into urban areas is that the coastal environments that they would usually inhabit are under pressure and under attack.
It has just been stated that the populations of herring gulls and urban black gulls—the two main species—have declined, but there is no evidence for that. In fact, NatureScot now admits that there is no such evidence regarding the populations of the urban-based species. Therefore, the whole debate is proceeding on a false assertion.
I ask Mr Ewing to speak to NatureScot and those who are monitoring our bird populations across Scotland. The fact that herring gulls are on the red list of protected species suggests that the science behind that shows that herring gull populations are collapsing.
Scotland is an internationally important location for herring gulls; we host about a quarter of the global breeding population. The pressures from climate change, food shortages and avian flu have contributed to the worrying declines in seabird populations, but they continue to be under attack in local areas.
I get people writing to me about gulls all the time. A group of people from Burntisland wrote to me this week to say that they are concerned because Forth Ports has demolished a hangar at the old Burntisland Fabrications site. Young, flightless herring gull chicks were stranded on that roof and were killed when the hangar was brought down. Dozens of nesting sites were destroyed. That might hearten Douglas Ross and some members of the Conservative Party, but I say to them that that is a wildlife crime. It is a crime that will be investigated by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Police Scotland, because these birds are protected for a very good reason.
There are options for authorities to control gulls where they are causing a problem. There are three circumstances in which that can take place—when there is a threat to human health and safety, when other non-lethal measures have been ineffective and when it is not harmful to the conservation of the overall population. That is the basis of the current licensing regime.
We have to consider what happens in our towns around waste management, and I point to the situation in Stirling. Tuesday is bin collection day in the centre of town, and we have bagged bin collections. Of course, the gulls flood into Stirling on a Tuesday morning, because they know that they can get an easy meal by opening up the bags. They are smart and intelligent creatures. I have also seen local residents putting out bread for the gulls between the times when waste collection takes place, which exacerbates the problem.
We need an approach that is led by councils, involves NatureScot and the business community and educates local people about the best way to manage gull populations. We also need an approach that respects the fact that these species are under attack and are declining in population. They are protected under law, and we should find a better way to coexist with them.
13:14
As we prepare to take flight, I congratulate Douglas Ross on bringing forward this important debate. As colleagues across the chamber have referenced, the menace of seagulls has been getting steadily worse in communities across Scotland. As a South Scotland MSP, I represent a wide region that includes many coastal areas, from Eyemouth and Dunbar in the east to Stranraer in the west. Many of those coastal towns and villages—and even inland ones—are experiencing serious and growing issues with gulls.
The birds can be large, aggressive and very territorial, and they are larger now than in the past because of their ready access to fast food on many streets. There have been multiple gull strike victims in Eyemouth. Outside one local business, in one month, seven children were attacked and left with gashes to the scalp and blood running down their faces. It is a real problem. Residents and businesses report to me and many parliamentary colleagues the problems that they are facing, from noise to property damage and direct attacks. Children, older people and tourists are particularly terrified when those attacks take place. As many members have referred to, I have heard about people changing their plans, changing dog walking routes or even changing the way that they access their homes because of the effect of gulls, particularly during nesting periods.
As ever, my colleague Douglas Ross is right to raise concerns about the recent shift in the approach that is being taken by NatureScot through its licensing regime. The reduction of approximately 75 per cent in the number of licences shows just what a seismic shift its new policy and guidance is having, and that change is leaving many communities with limited options to manage the issue. It has definitely contributed to the increased number of gull-related incidents across Scotland. The licences are essential for local authorities, landowners and businesses that are trying to protect public spaces, retail areas, residential communities and, in many instances, the local economy. The sharp drop in approvals has caused real concern for many of my constituents, and there is now a growing frustration that NatureScot is not fully reflecting the views of those who are directly affected when it assesses applications.
In East Lothian, for example, towns such as Dunbar and North Berwick are facing relentless problems during nesting season. I have heard from residents who feel as though they are under siege and are, rightly, calling for a more robust and practical use of licences to tackle the scourge of gulls. As Mr Ruskell made clear, those problems can be made worse by residents’ behaviour. For example in North Berwick, one resident feeds the seagulls, which causes huge disturbance, noise and inevitable mess for neighbouring properties. Apparently, East Lothian Council is powerless to intervene.
As Finlay Carson said, in Dumfriesshire, the issue has been particularly persistent. Anyone who visits Dumfries will see the gull that permanently sits atop the statue of Robbie Burns. Dumfries and Galloway Council spent its full £84,000 in gull control budgetary measures in 2023-24, investing in nest removal, gull-proof bins and deterrents on buildings, but the initiatives are still not working. That serves to show how serious the issue is and how much NatureScot must listen to local communities, because council budgets are being fully utilised. It would be unfair for NatureScot not to represent the views of our constituents.
I do not speak to demonise the herring gull. Gulls, when properly managed, are every bit a part of coastal life as fishermen, beaches and fish and chips, but the problem needs to be addressed. I look forward to hearing from the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity what the Government will do to take forward those concerns, because they are concerns of the communities that we represent. It is about protecting people, public health and local economies. We should not shy away from taking the serious and necessary steps that are needed to keep our communities safe.
I advise members that we are very tight for time. I will have to restrict later speakers to three minutes, as well as extending the debate.
13:18
I thank Douglas Ross for securing the motion for debate and for the joint working that we have done, and the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity for his engagement.
Gulls behaving naturally are a menace to humans. If a gull, a gigantic creature, swoops on an elderly person with poor balance and they fall over and break a hip, their mortality might be reduced by 18 months and they might be housebound. Infants in a pram or a buggy who get guano droppings on their hands or near them will put that in their mouth, which can cause all sorts of diseases—histoplasmosis, cryptococcosis, psittacosis, ornithosis, salmonellosis and E coli—I will give the Official Report the spellings. Those diseases are potentially lethal.
What survey analysis has been done by NatureScot or the health sections of the Scottish Government about the health risk? I am very serious about that. I believe that there has been no analysis whatsoever. If that is so, and there is a fatality, the Government will be held responsible, because it has not looked into the issue.
Under section 4 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014—I know, because I wrote it—there is a duty on all quangos to take account of the economic impact of their decisions. The economic impact on the business improvement districts is that they have to pay tens of thousands of pounds; instead of improving business, which is their role, they are having to sweep up the mess for NatureScot.
However, I will set out the real problem, which I mentioned in my intervention on Mr Ruskell. Incidentally, I have met NatureScot several times. We have been in lengthy correspondence, and I am fortunate to have had sight of a lengthy freedom of information response that a constituent received. I cannot read it all out—I do not have the time—but I will sum it up.
NatureScot has made its assertions constantly. Understandably, the minister has to rely on the advice that he gets—that is true, to a certain extent. However, once he reads that FOI response, he will see that there is no reliable data for the urban gull population. There were repeated requests for that data in 2021, 2023 and 2024—I could read those out, but I do not have the time—but it never came.
When officials raised the issue with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee of the UK Government, they said that “unfortunately” it had been raised again by an MSP. Why on earth are officials expressing a view that it is wrong for a parliamentarian to raise a concern? I say to the minister that they do that repeatedly. There is bias behind the scenes. The system is fundamentally flawed.
The summit should be chaired by an independent person, it should be open to the public, and it should have presentations from Lorraine McBride, Lucy Harding and others who have done sterling work but who should not have to have done so. As the minister knows, I profoundly believe that. I am not saying it for any effect other than to solve the problem in Scotland. That is what we are here for.
The system is defective. It is flawed from top to bottom. It needs to be completely redrawn. NatureScot should have nothing to do with licences, because there is a clear conflict of interest between that responsibility and its responsibilities for the conservancy of species.
13:22
I thank my colleague Douglas Ross for bringing the debate to the chamber.
I listened to the interaction between Douglas Ross and Christine Grahame about terminology. As a Troon boy, and having had the great pleasure for 30 years of doing my morning run along the beach with my dog, I can assure members that “dive-bombing” is a very good description of what gulls do. Fortunately, my dog was smart enough and big enough to take care of herself—
Will the member take an intervention?
Of course I will give way to Christine Grahame.
“Dive-bombing” is a description of an action. Terms such as “menace” apply a characteristic.
It is a very apt description of what gulls have been doing for years.
I acknowledge that a balance must be struck between managing nuisance birds and managing conservation and the wider impacts on the ecosystem. However, we must also recognise that there is an inherent risk to people and property as gull numbers increase in human-populated areas.
I recognise that some councils in my constituency are better than others at managing nuisance birds, and some face different challenges in that area. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency uses East Ayrshire Council’s seagull management plan as an example of good work. However, that does not mean that there are no seagull-related issues in East Ayrshire, and even the best councils have limited tools at their disposal.
A constituent of mine moved to Kilmarnock in 2021. In his own words, he
“spent a considerable amount of money on this property including the back garden area for the benefit of my grandchildren. The last two summers have been ruined with the council’s inability to do something about these birds and the pest they have become. My rear garden has become a no-go zone in the summer due to constant swooping when the young gulls are born, and the constant large amounts of toxic bird waste being deposited over my garden area.
I realise that these birds are protected but in doing so then the council/ Scottish Government must be responsible for the impact they are having on residents lives.”
When I raised the issue with the council on behalf of my constituent, it told me that it has no statutory duty to take action against the gulls and that it has no statutory powers to enforce the changes in behaviour that are needed to make a meaningful impact in such situations. In fact, it has said that it cannot stop people from feeding birds. However, it tries to encourage responsible feeding and offers education to that effect in the cases that are brought to its attention.
Neither does the council have any legal powers to require other building owners to follow the hierarchy of controls that are referred to by NatureScot before ultimately applying to it for a licence to remove nests and eggs. That is an action of a responsible property owner.
The approach to gull management needs to change to a proactive whole-system approach, working with residents, businesses and property owners, who each have a role to play. Not only do councils and businesses need the ability to get a licence for control measures, as my colleague Douglas Ross has laid out, but councils need more powers for enforcement in situations where the building owners and occupiers are documented and not managing their premises responsibly.
Gulls are traditionally associated with the sea, and my constituent lives inland, so the only reason that the gulls are there is for a food source. Their natural behaviour and environment have changed because of human interaction. Unless councils are given greater enforcement powers, along with the powers to manage the population, those issues will persist and grow. I hope that the minister will address those key issues in his response.
I once again thank my colleague Douglas Ross for raising this important issue.
Due to the number of members who still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Douglas Ross]
Motion agreed to.
I call Beatrice Wishart, to be followed by Liam Kerr. You have up to three minutes, Ms Wishart.
13:26
Sorry—I missed what you said, Presiding Officer. Did you say three or four minutes?
Three minutes.
Three minutes. Okay.
I thank Douglas Ross for bringing the debate to the chamber this afternoon. As the motion states, gulls can be a problem and even dangerous.
Problem behaviour is often heightened during nesting season, when vulnerable eggs and chicks need protecting. I have witnessed and experienced the intense behaviour of gulls during nesting season. One gull in my neighbourhood attacked anyone who was near the communal waste bins. I saw another fly at an unsuspecting man as he got out of his car. The large gull swooped, and its beak made contact with the man’s head and drew blood. He was quite shaken by what had happened.
I had my own gull experience a few years ago. I had hung out some washing to dry on a fine, sunny day. When I attempted to retrieve it, I was dive-bombed by a gull. I managed to bring it in only by clutching an open umbrella over my head and making a dash for safety as the gull had another go at me. I fear that, without my brolly, I, too, would have ended up with a gash to the head.
Although it seems amusing to retell the tale, there is a serious issue to deal with, and I believe that NatureScot must do much more to issue licences swiftly when there is evidence of possible harm to humans.
The Scottish Seabird Centre’s briefing pointed to the fact that 70 per cent of Scotland’s seabird species are in decline. We know that that is a result of the impact of climate change, invasive species and a reduction in natural food sources.
I have lived in a top-floor flat for more than 20 years. When I first moved in, I frequently heard the noisy call of herring gulls as they padded across the flat roof. They would fly down to the nearby seashore, pick up small crabs, starfish and sea urchins, and fly back, dropping their catch to break it open on the roof before landing to feed on their meal. They would nest in the chimneys on a nearby row of terraced houses. Interestingly, I do not see or hear them so often now.
RSPB Scotland highlights that herring gull numbers have almost halved since the 1980s. With readily available food from human waste, gulls are increasingly brought into our urban areas. They hover outside fish and chip shops in Lerwick, waiting for a feed. It is not unusual to see them sitting on top of parked cars while, inside, the occupants eat their fish suppers.
I, too, reiterate the advice not to feed the birds, not least because it can attract other wildlife. Gulls are acting naturally in an environment that we have built, and that requires us to change our behaviour so that we can live in greater harmony.
Although we can mitigate some human behaviour, NatureScot must be more proactive in reacting to evidence-based situations when licences are sought. The agency cannot give less importance to the safety and protection of humans than it does to that of gulls. There is a balance to be found.
13:29
I am delighted that Douglas Ross lodged this motion. Since being elected in 2016, I, too, have been inundated with concerns from constituents about screeching gulls dive-bombing people, particularly the elderly and small children, for food or territorial reasons.
In Aberdeen, the council receives around 200 complaints and inquiries about gulls every year, most of which concern aggressive behaviour, noise and damage to buildings. Just last week, on Schoolhill, I saw an enormous gull on the pavement, squaring up and refusing to budge. It was facing off against a terrified elderly woman and eyeballing her food. Aberdeen’s Marischal college, the second-largest granite building in the world, has sustained structural damage from the birds.
I must correct Mark Ruskell’s unevidenced assertions about numbers. A 2015 University of Bristol study showed that the number of urban gull colonies in the UK and Ireland had more than doubled to just under 500. In 2017, The Independent reported that the number had nearly quadrupled. That was eight years ago—the number will be huge by now.
I first started trying to find solutions in 2017.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I do not have time.
I saw then that, as long ago as 2010, the Scottish Government had commissioned research into the use of falcons to displace nesting gulls and into other actions, including egg and nest removal and egg oiling.
In 2016, the House of Commons suggested that buildings could be seagull proofed, councils could issue gull-proof bin bags and people could be educated about seagulls. At the time, former Edinburgh councillor Nick Cook advocated funding for de-nesting. More recently, Aberdeen has tried a hawk and Aberdeenshire is trialling sonar devices.
However, where in all this is the Government or NatureScot? Rhoda Grant gave us the answer to that earlier—they are passing the buck. I found a parliamentary question from 2015, in response to which Aileen McLeod MSP stated flatly:
“It is the responsibility of local authorities to address problems caused by urban gulls.”—[Written Answers, 17 September 2015; S4W-27335]
In 2019, following constituent complaints in Airyhall in Aberdeen, I demanded action, but Roseanna Cunningham simply said that it was for the local authority to deal with the situation. Later that year, I wrote to Aberdeen Council on behalf of constituents in Torry. The council said that there was nothing that it could do due to the legislative framework and that the problem was the property owner’s responsibility; it also sent me a nice leaflet about living with urban gulls.
Here we are, all these years later, with member after member queuing up to show that the problems are worse than ever, thanks to a Scottish Government that slopey shoulders them and a Government agency that, as Douglas Ross said, has an extraordinary conflict of interest—an agency that seriously proposed that people should use an umbrella to go into local shops and/or send their dugs up on to the roof.
This is a serious problem, and it needs serious solutions. Douglas Ross has proposed some—which I am four square behind—to protect humans and businesses from the menace of gulls. Nearly a decade on from when I first started campaigning, it is long past time for this Government to get its act together.
13:32
I thought that, while recognising the concerns raised by members, I would be alone in defending the clever, adaptable gull. I was wrong. The debate has been reasonably balanced.
I watched a gull on a busy high street case out a local store. It looked cautiously this way and that, glanced through the shop window, double-checked, dismissed me as being too distant to be a threat and then, when the shop door swished open, it was in and out in a flash, with a packet of crisps secured. It managed to break the seal to enjoy a snack. It was not a thief; it was simply an animal looking for easy pickings.
Language such as “mugging” and “menace” can be applied to us and to our counterparts, but it is not appropriate to demonise an animal that is simply looking for food. Anthropomorphising is tempting but not helpful. In part, as we recognise, we brought this on ourselves, as we are mucky creatures. Unlike the gull, however, we know the consequences, and we should take responsibility for dropping our half-consumed chips and for throwing sandwich packets to the ground, even when there is a visible waste bin nearby. There are also waste bins that are not regularly emptied but that should be. We fill tips with the detritus of our lives. If you were a gull, you would be tempted.
Do not get me wrong: I recognise that gulls can be intimidating and that there are serious incidents. Of course, if someone is somewhere where gulls regularly nest and have nested historically, they must keep their distance and respect nesting birds, which are, quite rightly, fierce defenders of their young. I was dive-bombed during the nesting season on the Isle of May. I say to members that I use the term correctly—I am not demonising; I am describing an action. That incident was completely my fault. It happened because of my ignorance.
What can we do? We can modify our own behaviour—we have mentioned all the things that we do wrong. We must not feed them, for example. We can choose methods to constrain and restrain that cause least harm to these animals. We might provide alternative nesting sites—perhaps that is why the stonemasons were being attacked.
In the Parliament, we have used trained hawks. In the main, that has been effective, although I recall seeing gulls mobbing a hawk and seeing it off, never to be seen again. However, that hawk was possibly being mobbed because the gulls have nests on this very site.
I have listened to the debate, in which legitimate issues and concerns have been raised. We must consider legal ways to control specific areas—methods of control that are humane for the gull population. I look forward to the response from the minister. However, we must not have a situation of people versus gulls or gulls versus people.
13:35
I thank my colleague Douglas Ross for bringing forward this important debate. As many members have said, we have been talking about this issue for years, but absolutely nothing is getting done. The Government is not listening to us, so the problem continues.
In Eyemouth, in my constituency, aggressive seagull behaviour continues to cause concern to businesses, tourists and anybody who is doing anything along the harbour. It is not just a seasonal nuisance; it is a serious and growing health and safety risk, particularly for children and elderly residents, as Fergus Ewing said.
In September last year, we were told that, in one month, seven children in Eyemouth had been attacked, with one girl left with gashes to her scalp and blood running down her face. One resident described people being “scared, attacked and traumatised”, and said that the problem is “actively deterring customers” from her business and the town. We found ourselves trying to plan ahead. The community got together with supportive councillors—Councillor Carol Hamilton, a Conservative, and Councillor James Anderson, an independent—and NatureScot to try to do something about the situation. However, the can was kicked down the road and nobody took it seriously.
NatureScot made some suggestions. Jim Fairlie shook his head when my colleague Liam Kerr said that the use of dogs had been suggested. That is absolutely in this—
The Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity (Jim Fairlie) rose—
I will say what is in this document first, if Mr Fairlie does not mind, and then I will take the intervention.
The document says that the applicant intended to try some solutions but that other solutions that had not been tried included disturbance by dogs. The reason why people have not used dogs is because gulls do not have nests on the ground. I made the point last week: do we expect spaniels to scale scaffolding or dogs to go up on drones?
Jim Fairlie rose—
I will take the intervention.
When Rachael Hamilton raised the issue last week, I was absolutely appalled to hear that it had been suggested that dogs should be used on roofs. I made an inquiry to NatureScot. The response that has come back says:
“We have not suggested or provided instructions that dogs should be used on rooftops to scare gulls and prevent nesting. Dogs can be an effective tool to disturb ground-nesting gulls and dogs are used in every licence application response as a possible means of deterrent.”
NatureScot gives people across-the-board deterrents, not just deterrents for use in a specific instance.
I can give you some of that time back, Ms Hamilton.
We have been working closely with local residents, and my point is that the licensing scheme is both bureaucratic and unrealistic, Mr Fairlie. I would appreciate it if you could look at—
Speak through the chair.
I would appreciate it if the minister could look at the red tape that is associated with businesses and at the timescales. We suggested a pilot, which would have been absolutely perfect and would have dealt with the bespoke issues that affect each and every town across Scotland that has problems with gulls.
I will give a snapshot of where I am and how I have tried to represent the views of my constituents. In December, I hosted a site visit with NatureScot to show it the worst-affected areas around the harbour. I have held multiple meetings with NatureScot to explore and seek advice on the licence application. I secured NatureScot’s endorsement of signage to discourage the public from feeding gulls. I have also convened discussions with Scottish Borders Council, which is now preparing a draft gull management plan.
Much more needs to be done on this. I do not believe that the issues are being taken seriously. When I highlighted last week—
You need to conclude—
I highlighted last week that, within 24 hours, NatureScot had U-turned and granted two licences. That happened only because I had highlighted the issue to the minister in Parliament. A lot more needs to be done. We need to support the people who are having trouble with the gulls.
I invite the minister to respond to the debate—around seven minutes, minister.
13:39
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—I will try to get through everything, but there is an awful lot to get through.
When I mention the fact that we are having a debate on gulls, people chuckle and laugh—just as Mr Ross talked about. It seems funny, but it is not—it is deadly serious. I absolutely accept that, and I hope that Mr Ross and Mr Ewing accept that I have taken the issue very seriously right from the start. I met them both on 15 April to talk about the gull management issues in Inverness and Moray; I then had a meeting with NatureScot immediately after that, on 23 April, to discuss those issues. I subsequently had a meeting with the Nairn and Inverness BIDs and Highland Council on 7 May to ensure that we were progressing the issues.
I understand that we currently have area-wide licences in Inverness and Nairn. We are still engaging with Moray Council to try to get a similar approach to that which has been taken in Inverness. NatureScot has been attempting to engage with Aberdeen City Council—so far, it has been unsuccessful, so I urge the council to engage with NatureScot so that we can get some resolution on the issues that we are talking about.
With regard to the rationale for licensing, the licences that are issued for dealing with gulls are based on the NatureScot guidance, which has been subject to clarification. Mr Ross has, in the past, raised the question of why the licensing has changed. The licensing has not changed, but the guidance has on the basis that the use of language such as “menace” or “nuisance” does not constitute a licensable purpose. That is a critical point, and I will come back to possible solutions later. The use of language is important, and licences can be issued only on the basis of health and safety. That is why the approach to current applications has differed from the approach that was previously taken. I am well aware of that issue, and we will pursue it. I appreciate the frustration that people feel when they have not been able to get a licence because of the surrounding bureaucracy.
Mr Ross has asked me to intervene using section 11 of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, which allows for ministerial directions. However, we have delegated the responsibility for licensing to NatureScot in order to have it make the decisions—
Will the minister give way?
In two seconds, Mr Ross.
If we go against the licensable purposes, we could be open to judicial review. It would therefore not be appropriate for ministers to get involved under the provisions that are currently in place.
I am happy to take an intervention from Douglas Ross.
On the point about ministerial direction and the licensing function of NatureScot, does the minister accept that—as the motion states and as members have reiterated today—there is a clear conflict between NatureScot’s responsibilities to conserve bird numbers and to consider applications to control those numbers?
I can give you the time back, minister.
I am more than happy to have a wider discussion when we come to discuss resolutions and what the debate will actually deliver. I am happy to look at all the issues that have been raised with us.
As I said, Mr Ross has asked me to look at my role in how we define the licensing terms, but we have delegated that power to NatureScot, and that is where it should stay at this time.
We also have to work out what is causing the issue in the first place. It is quite simple: we are feeding the gulls. We are creating a habitat and creating feeding stations, and we are thereby allowing gulls to inhabit our space. That is now quite clearly causing a conflict. Beatrice Wishart’s point in that regard was absolutely spot on and very balanced, as were Brian Whittle’s comments. There is a conflict, and we now need to find some way of coming to a resolution on that. We have to try to limit food waste and public littering, to take away the feeding opportunities. I dispute the fact that taking away the feeding opportunities is about starving the birds—it is about dispersing them and their behaviour so that they go to other places.
We hear about landfill sites that have been closed down. Those used to be feeding stations, but they are no longer available. Christine Grahame is spot on—the birds are having an issue with where they are sourcing their food. We have created that food source and we are creating nesting sites, and that is the issue on which we have to focus.
Jim Fairlie is slightly missing the point. If he takes the time to look at the reasons for the refusal of applications, he will realise that NatureScot has already stated, and has evidence to show, that the people who are having trouble have already undertaken all the measures for management and deterrence, including those with regard to food waste, preventing a return to old nests, hawking and so on. We need a summit, not just in Moray but across Scotland.
I have not missed any points at all. I stated from the outset that I am taking the matter very seriously. There is absolutely no doubt that, as we have heard from members from around the chamber, people are being attacked and injured and that we have to deal with that.
Mark Ruskell talked about gull numbers. Dee Ward has a tweet on his timeline that says that the red-listed herring gull seems to be bucking the trend in Dundee. However, the nine birds in the photo are sitting on top of rubbish bins, which are feed sources for them. I continue to make the point that we have a joint responsibility to work out the ways in which we are creating an environment that allows gulls to thrive in our communities and to consider how we can manage that in the future.
Will the minister address the point that I made that the basis of the restriction on licensing was that NatureScot argued—wrongly, I believe—that the populations of the two species that I named were in decline when, in fact, there is no evidence of that? Will the minister study the FOI responses if I send them to him? They prove beyond any doubt that there is no evidence that the populations are in decline. Therefore, what he said to me in his letter of 12 June is simply incorrect and the whole business is proceeding on the basis of a false assertion by NatureScot.
At this moment, I do not accept that. When I have definitive proof that it is the case, I will be more than happy to look at it. Indeed, I am more than happy to look at it.
Will the minister give way?
Do I have time to take the intervention, Presiding Officer?
I can give you the time back.
Does the minister also acknowledge that, although there might be some limited increases in populations in some urban areas, we see a decline across Scotland? That is why the species is on the red list and we have to take our international responsibilities seriously if we are to continue to protect it in law.
I also disagree with that point, because it is not small increases in numbers in urban birds. The figures that I have seen show large increases in the numbers of urban birds but crashing numbers of birds in their natural environment. That goes back to the point that I made right at the start of my speech, that we must stop feeding them, stop creating nesting spaces and find ways to displace them back to that natural habitat.
I am more than happy to take the issue seriously. I have already said that I will convene a summit. I announce—and my officials will ensure that it is done—that it will be in Inverness. When we have that summit, all the issues that have been raised in the debate will be discussed and we will consider everything. That is me taking responsibility as a minister who takes the matter seriously. I will ensure that we try to progress it so that we are not standing here in 10 years’ time with another members’ debate about gull species.
I apologise to colleagues for having to constrain the debate but we need to allow time for staff to come in to do the chamber turnaround before afternoon business begins at 2 o’clock.
13:48 Meeting suspended.Previous
First Minister’s Question TimeNext
Business Motion