���˿���

This is a group that is just about gulls. It continues a number of discussions—sometimes passionate and, in my case, animated—that I have had with the minister about the issue of gulls. It is an issue that deserves attention in the Parliament, despite what others say. The bill gives us an opportunity to address concerns that have been raised by my constituents and those of other ���˿���. I would particularly like to mention the work that Fergus Ewing has done on the issue, particularly around Inverness and Nairn, and the engagement that he has had with local business improvement districts and others.

In the past, Mr Ruskell has claimed that I want to kill every gull in Scotland, so I want to make it very clear that I do not want to kill them all. Indeed, this suite of amendments would not necessarily result in any gulls being killed. The amendments concern the powers of NatureScot in particular, which I will come on to in a moment, and the information that we have, which I think is lacking.

My amendment 257 gets to the heart of something that I have repeatedly raised with the minister. I respect that he has taken a different view on this, and he might still take a different view, but I would like to get this point on the record. I think that NatureScot has a serious conflict of interest. The organisation is charged by the minister and the Government both to conserve bird numbers and to determine the licences to control bird numbers, and I do not in any way see how those two things are compatible.

They would have to consider that. I will come on to the series of amendments, because they offer the minister and the Government a number of options. The licensing functions could be transferred to Government ministers, to local authorities or to any other body that the Scottish Government deemed appropriate.

However, on those considerations, I think that the minister himself accepted in the Parliament that some of NatureScot’s determinations have been, frankly, ridiculous. I believe that that was the wording that he used, and I will repeat the example that I think that he used. We had a case in Nairn in which an application was made to remove a nest, which was very high up, and NatureScot said that a picture had to be taken of the nest with that day’s newspaper. That is ridiculous, and I think that the minister accepted that in the chamber.

He says “experimental”; I will say “weird”. They were kept private and out of the public domain, but they deserve to be in the public domain, because those ideas are coming forward from an organisation that I do not deem suitable to determine these licence applications going forward. That is why I seek support for my amendments 257, 258 and 259.

We should also support amendment 260, in my name, in order to find out how much money is being spent by local authorities. Rachael Hamilton said that she does not know about future funding. My understanding is that the £100,000 is a one-off; it is a token fund, and the money will not continue. We need to know how much local authorities are spending.

My final amendment, amendment 261—for which I think there will be some support, if not from members of the Government’s party—simply seeks to work out how many of these birds there are in different parts of the country. As I said in my opening comments in this debate, if the RSPB thinks that we can and should get these bird numbers, why does the SNP Scottish Government not?

I urge members to support the suite of amendments in my name, and amendments 262 and 263, in Rachael Hamilton’s name.

I press amendment 257.

The process is happening, but not quickly enough. I refer the minister to written question S6W-42266, on the Inverness gull management plan pilot, lodged by Fergus Ewing, which the minister answered yesterday, I think. The pilot is still being developed by NatureScot. It is several months since the minister held his summit. We are not a million miles away from the next gull breeding season and NatureScot is still sitting on its pilot plan for next year’s nesting season. I accept that the minister believes that he has made progress internally with NatureScot, but it does not look like it is moving quickly enough—certainly not in terms of next year’s breeding season. We will quickly reach the point of the year when the gulls’ behaviour becomes even more aggressive, as they try to protect their eggs and nurture their young. We do not have the plans in place to deal with that.

I get the impression that the minister will not go through his reasons for not supporting the amendments. He is wedded to his view of NatureScot, which I fundamentally disagree with; I think that it should be stripped of that licensing function.

However, if the minister is going to stick to his view, I would at least like to understand it. What is wrong with asking for an annual survey of the gull populations in coastal and urban communities? The minister may say that that is in his plan, but, if that was the case, there would be no problem with agreeing to the amendment, to make sure that it happens.

I disagree. I think that NatureScot is incompetent and that its leadership should not be in charge of such an organisation. That is my personal view, and the minister takes a different view.

However, I take exception to what the minister said about there being only one or two examples. Those are the one or two examples that entered the public domain. We learned from the BIDs in Inverness and Nairn that people were told to use umbrellas to protect themselves while going in and out of shops. It was Rachael Hamilton who took up the issue of people being told to put dogs on roofs to deter—

I will in one second. There are also an awful lot of applications that have been rejected, and people are frustrated. Some of those people in Moray have come to me to say, “This is ludicrous,” but they will not put that in the public domain because they need to go back to NatureScot to get other applications determined, and they fear that speaking out will have implications for future applications. That may be why we are not hearing about many cases. I urge the minister not to believe that two or three examples means that the maximum number of people who are complaining is two or three. There are far more out there, but those people are worried about the adverse consequences of speaking out.

I am grateful to the minister for that offer, but I return to a point that he mentioned a couple of minutes ago. Is he telling Parliament that NatureScot illegally issued licences pre-2024? If so, what action was taken? If no action was taken, why can NatureScot not use the powers that it used pre-2024 for this year’s breeding season?

NatureScot was allowed to do that before and it did not breach any laws. You have just said that on the record. It would not breach any laws if it took that approach—which is being called for by Bruce Robertson, the Nairn and Inverness BIDs and others—in 2026.

But it did allow that—it was working in that way. Was NatureScot going rogue and working illegally?