Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the member take an intervention?

I thought that, while recognising the concerns raised by members, I would be alone in defending the clever, adaptable gull. I was wrong. The debate has been reasonably balanced.

I watched a gull on a busy high street case out a local store. It looked cautiously this way and that, glanced through the shop window, double-checked, dismissed me as being too distant to be a threat and then, when the shop door swished open, it was in and out in a flash, with a packet of crisps secured. It managed to break the seal to enjoy a snack. It was not a thief; it was simply an animal looking for easy pickings.

Language such as “mugging” and “menace” can be applied to us and to our counterparts, but it is not appropriate to demonise an animal that is simply looking for food. Anthropomorphising is tempting but not helpful. In part, as we recognise, we brought this on ourselves, as we are mucky creatures. Unlike the gull, however, we know the consequences, and we should take responsibility for dropping our half-consumed chips and for throwing sandwich packets to the ground, even when there is a visible waste bin nearby. There are also waste bins that are not regularly emptied but that should be. We fill tips with the detritus of our lives. If you were a gull, you would be tempted.

Do not get me wrong: I recognise that gulls can be intimidating and that there are serious incidents. Of course, if someone is somewhere where gulls regularly nest and have nested historically, they must keep their distance and respect nesting birds, which are, quite rightly, fierce defenders of their young. I was dive-bombed during the nesting season on the Isle of May. I say to members that I use the term correctly—I am not demonising; I am describing an action. That incident was completely my fault. It happened because of my ignorance.

What can we do? We can modify our own behaviour—we have mentioned all the things that we do wrong. We must not feed them, for example. We can choose methods to constrain and restrain that cause least harm to these animals. We might provide alternative nesting sites—perhaps that is why the stonemasons were being attacked.

In the Parliament, we have used trained hawks. In the main, that has been effective, although I recall seeing gulls mobbing a hawk and seeing it off, never to be seen again. However, that hawk was possibly being mobbed because the gulls have nests on this very site.

I have listened to the debate, in which legitimate issues and concerns have been raised. We must consider legal ways to control specific areas—methods of control that are humane for the gull population. I look forward to the response from the minister. However, we must not have a situation of people versus gulls or gulls versus people.

“Dive-bombing” is a description of an action. Terms such as “menace” apply a characteristic.

I do not agree with those terms, and I will address them in a short defence—a cautious defence—of the common gull.

On 24 April, I asked the First Minister about the guidance on mothballing rural nurseries. I was told that the guidance was under review. We are at the end of the school and nursery year. Is that review concluded? If so, when will it be published?

I will address the language that is used about gulls in my speech.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not access the app. I am just taking a collective judgment here, and I believe that it is a yes.

Presiding Officer, I declare an interest as convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare and thank you for allowing me this short contribution.

I speak in support of the LCM, which flows from a UK private member’s bill setting out, inter alia, to crack down on the illegal puppy trade. Serious organised crime is often at the root of that cruel trade of smuggling animals from disreputable sources, including puppy factory farms, because, as well as misery for the animal, there are big bucks to be made—thousands of pounds for a puppy. In passing, I also welcome the extension of the legislation to kittens.

The UK private member’s bill echoes my attempts, in my recent Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2025, to at least put a dent in this dreadful trafficking. The UK bill also sets out, as some have said, to end the mutilation of these companion animals by cropping ears and docking tails, which is done—and painfully at that—to fit in with fashion. I am sure that we all find those actions abhorrent.

I hope that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will now take the opportunity to accelerate the establishment of a UK-wide microchipping database of dogs—an issue that I have long pursued—which would provide traceability and be another significant component in ending this miserable trade.

I again thank the Presiding Officer and urge members to support the LCM.

As the pressure of Labour austerity and inflation continues to attack funding for our public services, and as the increase in employer national insurance continues to bite, ever more will probably fall to be delivered by the third sector—our charities—yet they, too, fall foul of that employer national insurance hike. Does the cabinet secretary agree that charities should be exempt from that job tax, and that it should be fully funded if they are not exempt?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes but I am unable to connect.