Hansard

It is apposite that this debate on how to tackle the nuisance caused by gulls in urban areas should follow a debate on quality of life, which has confirmed the importance that the Scottish Government places on tackling issues such as dog fouling, litter and graffiti.

Although some in the chattering classes poke fun at and sneeringly dismiss the issue, I can assure members that, to those who are faced with the consequences of gulls nesting and roosting in their communities, the matter is a serious one. Gulls are disruptive to the community and their presence is positively alarming for individuals when so-called dive-bombing occurs, which happens when the young are in the nest.

The minister is already aware that gull nuisance is a serious issue in Dumfries. It has prompted Dumfries and Galloway Council to set up a gull focus group, including councillors and officials, which took views from the public. The council has commissioned a number of detailed reports on the gull population in and around Dumfries. It has published a leaflet on the control of roof-nesting gulls. Despite that activity, the council's latest report shows a 9 per cent increase in the gull population overall and a more worrying 32 per cent increase in the population in areas on the outskirts of the town.

A number of options, both lethal and non-lethal, for dealing with gulls are available. The purpose of today's debate is to encourage the Scottish Executive to introduce further best practice guidelines that reflect how the issue has been dealt with effectively across Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom or Europe, instead of requiring individual authorities such as Dumfries and Galloway Council to reinvent the wheel and to deal with the problem themselves. In my view, there is a need to clarify the law. In its submission, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds indicates that it would welcome more guidance clarifying the legal status of wild gulls.

The difficulties that arise with gulls are well documented. The J C environmental consultancy 2001 report on Dumfries makes it clear that the density of gulls in the centre of the town is now sufficiently high to cause considerable fouling of the streets. Many vertical walls of buildings in the town centre are heavily streaked with gull droppings. That, along with the very presence of the birds, makes the town centre much less attractive.

There are also noise problems, especially when gulls are roosting or nesting on roofs of individual homes. The RSPB is right to point out that calls are a natural part of the breeding behaviour of the species, but to the affected householders the noise of gulls calling can be a nightmare.

Another problem is that of birds swooping and so-called dive-bombing. That occurs primarily during the nesting season, especially if chicks fall from the nest. The concept of swooping may amuse some people, but it causes panic in elderly people and is extremely frightening. I know of people who felt unable to leave their homes when the activity was taking place.

Gulls also damage roofs by picking at roof materials. They are responsible for blocking drains, flues and gutters.

A wide range of measures has been taken to remedy the situation and to establish exactly why the birds are in Dumfries in the first place. For a long time it was thought that the presence of gulls in Dumfries town centre was a direct consequence of the town's proximity to the Locharmoss waste disposal landfill site. However, research has indicated that the gulls that use the waste disposal site are younger birds that fly to it directly from the coast and do not inhabit the town centre.

Food is a key reason for the gulls' presence in Dumfries and other communities. It is incredible that some individuals continue to feed the gulls in the streets of Dumfries and other towns. However, the unintentional feeding that comes from littering—especially the disposal of half-eaten takeaways and other foodstuffs—is clearly a significant attraction to gulls. Another problem is the disposal of waste from commercial premises, particularly those that sell food. It is ridiculous that such premises still put waste into the street in plastic bin bags that gulls can easily peck through. I will be interested to hear how the national and local waste disposal strategy to which the minister referred in response to a question that I asked last week will ensure an end to bin bags containing discarded foodstuffs in our streets, which could significantly reduce the lure of town centres for gulls.

A large number of nests are built on flat roofs of commercial properties. Although gull-proofing roofs is to be encouraged, particularly on significant sites, a concerning finding of the 2001 report on Dumfries town centre was that a large number of gulls whose original sites had been disrupted by maintenance work had moved to other sites. It is interesting to note that, when a scheme was operated in Eyemouth that provided grants for gull-proofing roofs, there was a disappointingly poor take-up by property owners.

As I have indicated, many aspects of the debate can seem somewhat surreal. I was not aware—and the minister might not be aware—that gulls are regular clubbers. Large numbers of young potentially breeding birds gather together to find breeding partners. Those clubs act as a centre of attraction for gulls. The vast group at the Safeway store in Dumfries regularly comprises 60 to 120 birds. Although the nests have been removed successfully from the Safeway roof, the club continues to meet. Simply removing the nest or operating anti-nesting measures is not sufficient and efforts have to be made to disrupt breeding activities so that young birds move elsewhere to breed and the number of nesting gulls in our towns is reduced.

The disruption of breeding activities is only one measure to be taken. I commend Dumfries and Galloway Council for the range of measures that it has tried over the years, from using plastic hawks and real hawks to removing nests and disrupting breeding colonies. The various websites of groups such as the Pigeon Control Advisory Service and the British Pest Control Association set out numerous lethal methodologies, such as shooting, and non-lethal methodologies. A wide range of potential solutions emerges.

Although local authorities in Scotland have the responsibility to deal with the issue, they need clearer guidance on what solutions are available, in what circumstances those measures have proved to be effective and how a concerted plan of action can be carried through that does not simply move the gulls elsewhere in a community or to another community.

I seek the minister's views on the current legal position, which I understand to be that gulls can be culled only if there seem to be genuine issues of public health and safety, rather than simply of nuisance. Accordingly, I would be grateful if he would set out when nuisance crosses the line to become a public health and safety issue and in what circumstances he would envisage culling. I make it clear that I do not promote culling as the one simple solution to the problem. I look forward to the minister's response so that we can move forward and help local authorities and communities to find a solution to this long-running problem.