Seòmar agus comataidhean

As we prepare to take flight, I congratulate Douglas Ross on bringing forward this important debate. As colleagues across the chamber have referenced, the menace of seagulls has been getting steadily worse in communities across Scotland. As a South Scotland MSP, I represent a wide region that includes many coastal areas, from Eyemouth and Dunbar in the east to Stranraer in the west. Many of those coastal towns and villages—and even inland ones—are experiencing serious and growing issues with gulls.

The birds can be large, aggressive and very territorial, and they are larger now than in the past because of their ready access to fast food on many streets. There have been multiple gull strike victims in Eyemouth. Outside one local business, in one month, seven children were attacked and left with gashes to the scalp and blood running down their faces. It is a real problem. Residents and businesses report to me and many parliamentary colleagues the problems that they are facing, from noise to property damage and direct attacks. Children, older people and tourists are particularly terrified when those attacks take place. As many members have referred to, I have heard about people changing their plans, changing dog walking routes or even changing the way that they access their homes because of the effect of gulls, particularly during nesting periods.

As ever, my colleague Douglas Ross is right to raise concerns about the recent shift in the approach that is being taken by NatureScot through its licensing regime. The reduction of approximately 75 per cent in the number of licences shows just what a seismic shift its new policy and guidance is having, and that change is leaving many communities with limited options to manage the issue. It has definitely contributed to the increased number of gull-related incidents across Scotland. The licences are essential for local authorities, landowners and businesses that are trying to protect public spaces, retail areas, residential communities and, in many instances, the local economy. The sharp drop in approvals has caused real concern for many of my constituents, and there is now a growing frustration that NatureScot is not fully reflecting the views of those who are directly affected when it assesses applications.

In East Lothian, for example, towns such as Dunbar and North Berwick are facing relentless problems during nesting season. I have heard from residents who feel as though they are under siege and are, rightly, calling for a more robust and practical use of licences to tackle the scourge of gulls. As Mr Ruskell made clear, those problems can be made worse by residents’ behaviour. For example in North Berwick, one resident feeds the seagulls, which causes huge disturbance, noise and inevitable mess for neighbouring properties. Apparently, East Lothian Council is powerless to intervene.

As Finlay Carson said, in Dumfriesshire, the issue has been particularly persistent. Anyone who visits Dumfries will see the gull that permanently sits atop the statue of Robbie Burns. Dumfries and Galloway Council spent its full £84,000 in gull control budgetary measures in 2023-24, investing in nest removal, gull-proof bins and deterrents on buildings, but the initiatives are still not working. That serves to show how serious the issue is and how much NatureScot must listen to local communities, because council budgets are being fully utilised. It would be unfair for NatureScot not to represent the views of our constituents.

I do not speak to demonise the herring gull. Gulls, when properly managed, are every bit a part of coastal life as fishermen, beaches and fish and chips, but the problem needs to be addressed. I look forward to hearing from the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity what the Government will do to take forward those concerns, because they are concerns of the communities that we represent. It is about protecting people, public health and local economies. We should not shy away from taking the serious and necessary steps that are needed to keep our communities safe.

On Monday, for the third time in as many months, I visited The Usual Place in Dumfries. As the First Minister will know from his recent visit, Craig McEwen and his team operate a life-changing hospitality-based project that equips young people with disabilities and additional support needs with the experience, confidence and skills to enter the workplace. However, last weekend, it was confirmed that The Usual Place was unsuccessful in its application to the Scottish Government’s learning disability support fund. Craig McEwen fears that, if no further Scottish Government funding is confirmed soon, The Usual Place might have to shut its doors for good in December. We cannot let that happen.

Will Mr Swinney engage with his officials and Inspiring Scotland to turn the warm words that he spoke during his recent visit into urgently needed financial support?

As we prepare to take flight, I congratulate Douglas Ross on bringing forward this important debate. As colleagues across the chamber have referenced, the menace of seagulls has been getting steadily worse in communities across Scotland. As a South Scotland MSP, I represent a wide region that includes many coastal areas, from Eyemouth and Dunbar in the east to Stranraer in the west. Many of those coastal towns and villages—and even inland ones—are experiencing serious and growing issues with gulls.

The birds can be large, aggressive and very territorial, and they are larger now than in the past because of their ready access to fast food on many streets. There have been multiple gull strike victims in Eyemouth. Outside one local business, in one month, seven children were attacked and left with gashes to the scalp and blood running down their faces. It is a real problem. Residents and businesses report to me and many parliamentary colleagues the problems that they are facing, from noise to property damage and direct attacks. Children, older people and tourists are particularly terrified when those attacks take place. As many members have referred to, I have heard about people changing their plans, changing dog walking routes or even changing the way that they access their homes because of the effect of gulls, particularly during nesting periods.

As ever, my colleague Douglas Ross is right to raise concerns about the recent shift in the approach that is being taken by NatureScot through its licensing regime. The reduction of approximately 75 per cent in the number of licences shows just what a seismic shift its new policy and guidance is having, and that change is leaving many communities with limited options to manage the issue. It has definitely contributed to the increased number of gull-related incidents across Scotland. The licences are essential for local authorities, landowners and businesses that are trying to protect public spaces, retail areas, residential communities and, in many instances, the local economy. The sharp drop in approvals has caused real concern for many of my constituents, and there is now a growing frustration that NatureScot is not fully reflecting the views of those who are directly affected when it assesses applications.

In East Lothian, for example, towns such as Dunbar and North Berwick are facing relentless problems during nesting season. I have heard from residents who feel as though they are under siege and are, rightly, calling for a more robust and practical use of licences to tackle the scourge of gulls. As Mr Ruskell made clear, those problems can be made worse by residents’ behaviour. For example in North Berwick, one resident feeds the seagulls, which causes huge disturbance, noise and inevitable mess for neighbouring properties. Apparently, East Lothian Council is powerless to intervene.

As Finlay Carson said, in Dumfriesshire, the issue has been particularly persistent. Anyone who visits Dumfries will see the gull that permanently sits atop the statue of Robbie Burns. Dumfries and Galloway Council spent its full £84,000 in gull control budgetary measures in 2023-24, investing in nest removal, gull-proof bins and deterrents on buildings, but the initiatives are still not working. That serves to show how serious the issue is and how much NatureScot must listen to local communities, because council budgets are being fully utilised. It would be unfair for NatureScot not to represent the views of our constituents.

I do not speak to demonise the herring gull. Gulls, when properly managed, are every bit a part of coastal life as fishermen, beaches and fish and chips, but the problem needs to be addressed. I look forward to hearing from the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity what the Government will do to take forward those concerns, because they are concerns of the communities that we represent. It is about protecting people, public health and local economies. We should not shy away from taking the serious and necessary steps that are needed to keep our communities safe.

There were four questions in there, but I have not heard any answers.

The previous medium-term financial strategy was published just over two years ago. Last year’s was binned, and this year’s was delayed. With the Government slipping out this year’s strategy just before the summer recess, we have no time to properly scrutinise the plan. What we do know is that, without radical action on public sector reform, health and labour force trends, Scots face substantially higher taxes or a state that does less.

The projected £5 billion fiscal gap by the end of the decade is not Westminster’s fault or responsibility; it is the Scottish National Party’s. Today’s 0.5 per cent workforce reduction plan lacks ambition and detail. The tax strategy is wrong, and it is bringing in just £616 million this year, which is £1 billion less as a result of the SNP’s economic performance gap. There is still no credible plan to generate the growth that is needed to pay for it all.

How can we trust the SNP to deliver additional tax receipts of £2.3 billion by 2029-30 when its existing plans bring in only a quarter of that? How do ministers intend to pay for Scotland’s health outcomes? Yesterday’s data revealed that things are still getting worse. How does the Government intend to address alarming and rising levels of economic inactivity, which can no longer be ignored, and how will ministers pay for the year-on-year surge in welfare spending, which is £2 billion, as a result of SNP policy? Is it not the case that the delayed SNP document is too little too late to rescue the Scottish economy or our fragile public finances?

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. My app is frozen. I would have voted yes.

I thank the Minister for Public Finance for advance sight of his statement. We know that the Government does not like being reminded that, in recent years, it has secured record settlements from Westminster and that it is duty bound to balance its budget. At a time of Scottish National Party cuts—to areas such as colleges and employability schemes—and tax rises, we have found out from today’s provisional outturn report that there is a growing underspend as a result of decisions taken by Scottish ministers.

The SNP has repeatedly underspent its budget, and it has done that this year to the tune of £557 million, which is almost double the figure of the previous year. Ministers could have put that money to good use. It could have met our repeated calls for the passing on of rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in full. That would have saved jobs and businesses that are now lost, and delivered tax receipts, which are now faltering. It could have provided support to Scotland’s underfunded councils, which were this year forced to impose double-digit council tax increases. That would have allowed hard-pressed households to save money.

Today’s report also proves that ministers continue to pursue the wrong economic and fiscal priorities, with the Government confirming the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s projection of an £851 million shortfall in Scotland’s tax take. That is a black hole that will have to be reckoned with in 2027 and 2028.

Is it not, therefore, deeply regrettable that money that could have been spent last year on saving jobs, supporting councils and delivering growth to drive much needed tax revenues will now be spent in future years on the negative social and economic costs of those repeated SNP policy failures and misplaced priorities? [Interruption.]

I apologise for my late arrival and for missing the beginning of the minister’s statement.

This 49-page, 14,851-word wish list of word soup on the future of public services does not use the word “waste” once, but it does say that the Scottish National Party Government has

“the ability to deliver real change within the public services”.

I agree with that, because the Government has delivered real change for the worse in Scotland’s public services.

Despite that Government telling us, the Scottish Conservatives, that it would be reckless to advocate for tax reductions of £500 million, Ivan McKee says today that he can save £1 billion simply by cutting corporate functions by 20 per cent in the next five years. The Government says that that is neither an attempt to grab headlines nor a throwing out of targets, but we have been here many times before with the SNP.

I therefore have some questions for the Government. What is the breakdown of the £1 billion in savings? How will those be made, in which departments and agencies and in which specific corporate functions? If that is now so achievable, why has the SNP Government not done it before?

The strategy makes only passing reference to the workforce and the issue of severance, so what size, in full-time-equivalent terms, will the bloated civil service be by the end of this decade and in 2035? The strategy does not mention a single body, agency or quango that is to be cut, so are there any, other than those that were announced in the health service statement yesterday, or is this yet another work of fiction? Is it not time for this Government to stop talking and start swinging the axe?

Will Daniel Johnson give way?

The minister should be aware of the case involving Lawrence, a constituent of mine who suffers from leukaemia. Lawrence experienced the distress of watching other children on his ward receive education from the City of Edinburgh Council’s hospital schooling service at the sick kids hospital, while he was denied it because he attends a school in the independent sector, and his parents could not pay the £115 an hour that the council charges in such circumstances.

Since I raised Lawrence’s case, more parents have been in touch with me—and with bodies that represent independent schools—to highlight similar injustices. Several cases involve children with a disability being refused access to specialist equipment, such as aids for hearing impairment, or having it withdrawn, because they attend independent schools.

Will the minister commit to working urgently with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, councils, the independent schools sector and NHS boards to reach a resolution that ends that unjust discrimination against sick and disabled children in Scotland?