Meeting of the Parliament 28 January 2026
I take on board that Mr Ross was successful in having his amendment agreed to at stage 2, but there was still some confusion about what was being delivered. We could have tried to knock out the amendment completely and dismiss people’s views, but we did not do that. I said that we needed to find a way to meet Mr Ross’s aspirations and make sure that we had a workable solution, which is why I lodged amendment 60.
We continue to focus on delivering improvements to gull management ahead of the next gull breeding season. That includes making £100,000 immediately available to local authorities following the gull summit that we held in September, to support the mitigation of gull impacts.
NatureScot is running a series of round-table meetings in the areas of Scotland that are worst impacted by gulls. It is working with people in those areas to offer support and advice on licensing options and other mitigation activities ahead of the next nesting season.
That is only a small portion of the work that we are doing on gulls, and we will continue to consider what other actions might be necessary. I therefore ask members to support my amendment 60, which seeks to make reporting on the gull population achievable while still honouring the intent of the original amendment that was agreed to at stage 2, which Mr Ross mentioned.
Amendment 60 sets out that a gull report will include information about the gull population in coastal and urban areas. I am not sure why the member has lodged amendment 60A, because I have set out that my focus is on delivering improvements to gull management and not on debating unnecessary amendments for the sake of doing so. We have committed to producing a gull report every five years, and we will use that information, alongside the data from the national seabird census and other counts, to inform decision making. We will provide information about coastal and urban gulls as part of that, so I urge members to vote against amendment 60A.
I turn to amendment 148. As I set out at stage 2 in relation to Mr Ross’s amendment 260, I do not agree with the member’s proposals to mandate a review of spending on gull management efforts or the creation of a gull management fund. Following the gull summit in September, £100,000 has been made available to help local authorities to develop their gull management plans. That demonstrates that the objective of Mr Ross’s amendment 148 is being delivered, without the need for mandatory statutory requirements.
A statutory fund would add rigidity and bureaucracy and would require governance and reporting structures that would divert resources from practical gull management, which I think that we are all looking for. Ultimately, ministers do not require legislation to review and create funding schemes relating to the management of gulls, and it is for that reason primarily that I ask the member not to move amendment 148.
18:00On amendments 149 to 151, in the name of Douglas Ross, I note that we are debating amendments that are identical to ones that we discussed at length at stage 2. As I set out then, ministers already have the responsibility to issue licences in respect of wild birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That function has been delegated to NatureScot. Scottish ministers can revoke the delegation to NatureScot at any time without new legislation being needed. Those amendments are, therefore, unnecessary.
Mr Ross has consistently been critical of NatureScot’s licensing approach relating to gull management. I can understand why, in some circumstances, but I do not think that he has considered that, no matter who issues the licensing in relation to the management of gulls, they will always need to consider the health of the gull population and other sensitive conservation factors.
For the sake of members in the chamber, I will reiterate what I set out at stage 2. Gulls are a protected species. It is not a conflict of interest that NatureScot must consider their species status; it is simply a part of the licensing process. I believe that NatureScot is best placed to hold responsibility for that licensing, because it has the data, knowledge and experience to issue and manage those licences. I remain committed to working together to find solutions that recognise the complexities around gull populations. Those solutions must work for the people who are living with the negative effects of gulls every day. Regardless, Mr Ross’s amendments are unnecessary and could undermine the clarity and operational effectiveness of the processes. Therefore, I urge members to oppose amendments 149 to 151.
On amendment 152, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, as I set out in relation to a similar amendment at stage 2, I appreciate the member’s intention to improve transparency around gull licensing, but I cannot support the amendment. It is not clear in relation to the timeframes, the production of a report or how often a report should be produced.
From the outset, legislation is not required to achieve the objectives of amendment 152. NatureScot already collects and publishes gull licensing data, including data on the number of licences issued, the permitted numbers and the return of data for the lethal control of adults and chicks. That information is already publicly available, albeit that it is currently integrated into the wider annual licensing data set. Furthermore, the definition of a gull, as currently drafted, lacks clarity. It is too broad and does not work for the intended purpose of the amendment. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment and I ask the member not to move it.
I move amendment 60.