Chamber and committees

I will be brief, convener. Rachael Hamilton talked about trust between the Scottish Government and landowners, but this is about trust between landowners, the Scottish Government, the public and everybody else, so that landowners and people who shoot the grouse have the respect that they deserve from everybody.

We should not allow a few bad eggs to bring down the entire industry. The majority of the industry will benefit from the fact that the legislation is being tightened up, and people will see a well-regulated industry that does a good job, that does fantastic stuff by bringing money and jobs into the countryside, and that they should get behind. That is the purpose of the proposal.

It was a ludicrous requirement, but it was something about which I, as a minister, could speak to NatureScot and ask for more sensible discussions about what the licence is. Therefore, that is what was done.

The member will also be aware that we had discussions about the issues in the Inverness area, which Mr Ross and Mr Ewing brought to me. Ministers have the ability to speak to NatureScot to say, “This isn’t working. Can you please change it?” That is what happened in that case, and those things were done. Does the member accept that that process is happening already?

The annual survey—sorry, I cannot go through all that again. I would need to read the whole thing out to get the clarity that I need in my own head to deliver that information to the committee.

We are not talking about doing an annual survey. We cannot do an annual survey, because wintering birds and different species are involved. We do not have the time or the resource to do an annual survey, because that would take time away from NatureScot carrying out its other functions and purposes. There is no need for an annual survey—and it is very difficult to do one—but we are working out how we can get the population data. As we get the methodology worked out, we will make sure that we have numbers that are as accurate as they can possibly be.

I did not say that we are not doing a survey. You asked for an annual survey, so we need to work out—

Okay. As I set out in the strategic action plan, there is an awful lot of work going on. I am absolutely committed to making sure that NatureScot carries out its functions, as it is required to do by the Scottish Government. We expect that it will do so in a way that protects the gulls in relation to which it issues licences and, at the same time, takes account of the issues that people are raising with it. I hope that I have already demonstrated to Mr Ross that I am prepared to intervene when that is absolutely necessary. However, I do not support the amendments and I ask the committee not to support them.

It is because nuisance and health and safety are two entirely different things.

I also set out in the chamber that the mass reduction and removal of eggs, nests and chicks is not the appropriate way to go. We have to take a much more holistic approach to how we manage and live with gulls as we go forward. That is the position that I will take.

We will absolutely take seriously all the issues that people have raised. I take all the points that Rachael Hamilton, Tim Eagle and Douglas Ross have raised about people’s concerns. I do not diminish them in any way, shape or form, but our actions should not be taken at the expense of the status of some of the gulls, whose numbers have crashed.

I also accept that we do not have the data, which is why a gull survey is currently being advanced. A task force is scrutinising the evidence to consider how we should take the matter forward.

I want to get the committee to understand that we are not taking the matter lightly by any stretch of the imagination. However, actions should not be taken at the expense of a bird population that is in massive decline in some areas. The decline is also across species. When we talk about individual gulls, what are we talking about—is it herring gulls or others?

I will not support the amendments today—

I press amendment 35.

I ask that amendments 32 and 32A not be pressed and that the other amendments in the group not be moved, because the Government has made an absolute commitment to continue to do the work that we are doing on a four-nations basis. Whatever Northern Ireland does in its back yard is entirely up to it, but it will come across the same problems that we would have if we implemented a ban straight away. As I pointed out, a ban on glue traps has been cleared, yet it is still not doable.

I get that you have been very patient, but I ask for a bit more patience to allow us to continue to work on a four-nations basis. We will press as hard as we can to get an effective ban that works right across the country.

The plan is a living, growing thing. It will continue to evolve, because we will not get all the answers for all the issues that we are facing with gull populations in urban Scotland immediately. It will be an on-going process, but that does not mean that there is not work going on behind the scenes in order that we can say what we will do in the interim for the particular issue that the parties that are involved in the current discussion are facing. It is disingenuous to say that there is nothing being done and that we have not done anything, or that no progress is being made. Progress is being made, and it has been made from the very first phone call that I had with Mr Ross and Mr Ewing. We took action then, and we continue to take action. The plan that we put in place will develop as we go along, because this is not an overnight fix by any stretch of the imagination.

I would like the member to consider the fact that, no matter who has the authority, they will always have to take into account the fact that these gulls are protected for a very good reason. As we find solutions, they will be developed in conjunction with the people who are looking to have the issues resolved.