Meeting of the Parliament 26 June 2025
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