Meeting of the Parliament 26 June 2025
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.