Meeting of the Parliament 28 January 2026
I am heartened that the minister now admits that there is a gull problem. We took a long time to get to that stage—we had to ask numerous questions and use parliamentary time to highlight the issue to the minister but, through amendment 60, he clearly recognises it. The culmination of the pressure from the Conservatives led to the gull summits, which at least allowed communities to have a say.
Amendment 152 provides that ministers should review the use of licences and the licence conditions in relation to the management of gulls. Specifically, it would require a report on the annual number of licence applications in each of the previous five years. The minister said that there is not a timeframe in the amendment, but I repeat that the amendment says that the report should be done every five years. The report should outline
“the number of applications rejected and approved”,
outline information on the conditions attached to the licences, consider
“problems faced by urban and coastal communities”
and question
“whether the licence conditions address any of those problems.”
I want to take the minister back to the point about how NatureScot was addressing the situation. As Douglas Ross said, it was suggesting ridiculous ways to deal with ground-nesting birds or to manage gulls. I repeat that advising using spaniels on scaffolding and dogs on drones was not meeting the needs of the community.
Before I outline my reasoning behind amendment 152, I acknowledge the recent engagement by the minister and NatureScot on the issue. Following pressure from members on the Conservative benches, regional round tables were hosted by NatureScot. Although I was unable to attend the summit in Eyemouth, I have heard from local businesses and residents that it was a step in the right direction. They noted that it is critical that the actions are discussed and followed up pre-season every year.
Despite acknowledging that aggressive gulls are a health and safety issue—which it also took us a long time to convince the minister of—NatureScot’s licensing process remains bureaucratic and inconsistent. I totally agree with my colleague Douglas Ross that NatureScot should be stripped of its powers, because there is a conflict of interest.
I want to take the minister back to 2024, when NatureScot issued only 505 licences for gull control, compared with more than 2,000 in the previous year. In addition, in 2024, only one licence was issued in the Borders, compared with 10 in the previous year. Communities need practical solutions to the issue. My amendments would provide clarity by reviewing the licensing process to ensure that it is suitable and accessible.
18:15Finally, I want to say how unfair the minister’s comment about my colleague Finlay Carson was. Yes, he is a Scottish Conservative. I am proud of what he does in the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. As convener, he has the casting vote; that is how the process works. Just because he is a Scottish Conservative does not mean that that vote is invalid. In any other committee, a similar vote would have been considered to be entirely valid, especially if Jim Fairlie was commenting on one that had been voted on by an SNP convener.