Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Douglas Ross for securing the debate. I pay tribute to the work of Councillors Sandy Keith and John Divers in Moray, who for many years have been wrestling with problems caused by seagulls in Elgin. We need to be clear that the birds are not acting maliciously; they are simply looking for food and trying to protect their young.

Urban seagulls have been causing a major problem and often present a danger to the public. We have all witnessed them snatching food out of unsuspecting people’s hands, which can be dangerous. As the birds swoop and snatch, they can hurt people. That is a greater issue for older people and children, as those more vulnerable individuals can be knocked down and seriously injured. We have seen cases of people being injured or left bleeding after seagulls have swooped on them. I also remember hearing about how the kind operators of one food outlet offered to replace the lunches of schoolchildren when gulls had snatched their food from their hands. As we all know, such problems get worse when seagulls have chicks. They are good parents, and, as their young begin to fledge, they become even more protective. Anyone who inadvertently gets close to a fledgling chick is likely to be attacked, which can cause them injury and fear.

One of my constituents contacted NatureScot about the issue. Its reply was that it would not grant a licence for nest and egg removal where gulls were simply creating a nuisance; it would do so only if there were a public health and safety issue. Even then, nest and egg removal would be done only as a last resort. NatureScot also said that gull numbers were in decline. That might be so in the birds’ normal habitat, but it does not feel as though it is the case in urban areas, where the danger that they cause to the public is increasing.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I absolutely agree with Douglas Ross’s point. The same constituent of mine who wrote to NatureScot was told to approach local government, because the issue was one for it to resolve. They were told that, rather than NatureScot removing seagulls’ eggs and nests, councils need to stop people dropping food in the street and littering, and they need to put in place better bins that gulls cannot get into.

It seems that NatureScot is saying that it will not do anything because seagull numbers are falling. However, if it were so concerned about those falling numbers, its response would not be to advise people to remove food sources. It seems that it is really trying to ensure that somebody else takes action, and it is passing the buck. We cannot continue in that way, and we have to make sure that things change, because the issue presents a danger to the public.

As Emma Roddick mentioned, almost 20 years ago in Inverness, there was a sharp increase in gulls coming into the city, following the closure of a nearby landfill site. The council took measures to remove nests under licence, but it also considered other deterrents that were not deadly to birds, all of which helped. Putting together all the available tools and approaches alongside the licensed removal of nests does work, including using sonar and lasers and deploying birds of prey. All of those strategies will have to be considered if towns such as Elgin, Inverness and many others are to receive timely intervention.

The longer the debate has gone on, the more we have heard that there is a role for the Scottish National Party Government to better facilitate an effective relationship whereby NatureScot and local authorities can work together to use all the tools that are at their disposal. Of course, that will need funding, and we know that local authorities have been underfunded for years. It is simply not right for NatureScot to pass on its responsibility.

I hope that, in closing the debate, the minister will address how the Government could step in to ensure that all the organisations concerned can manage the danger that is caused by seagulls attacking people, because that is a public health issue.

We are facing an epidemic of violence against women. Recorded crime statistics show that sexual crime, rape and domestic abuse continue to increase unabated. Indeed, the statistics for domestic abuse are the highest ever. All the while, perpetrators of some aspects of violence against women, such as commercial sexual exploitation, face no sanction at all, and yet the Scottish Government has shelved its misogyny bill and appears to be taking no action to protect women from violence. Will the Government now commit to introduce a bill that protects women against misogyny and back Ash Regan’s unbuyable bill in the hope of turning the tide on this abhorrent crime?

I think that we are somewhat puzzled that the Welsh Parliament considered a legislative consent memorandum on the bill some time ago, but we in this Parliament were not given the same notice. The issue is not the content of the LCM; it is very much about the process and giving committees of this Parliament time to consider legislation properly.

I do not believe that the facts that have been laid out explain why the LCM came so late to our committee. If we are to carry out our role as parliamentarians, we must scrutinise all legislation, no matter how well meaning. We need to find a better way of processing this type of legislation, to allow the Parliament to carry out that role properly. I hope that the Scottish Government will now take on board the committee’s concerns and take steps to deal with the matter, to ensure that it never happens again.

That does not alter the fact that the legislation provides the opportunity to improve animal welfare and discourage the illegal trade in animals. I therefore urge the Parliament to support it.

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to tackle violence against women. (S6O-04843)

The UK Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill proposes to make puppy and kitten smuggling more difficult by banning the import of puppies and kittens under six months, and it seeks to improve animal welfare by banning the import of cats and dogs that have been mutilated or that are heavily pregnant.

It will also close loopholes and make it more difficult for illegal traders who pose as pet owners travelling with their animals to import animals. We have all heard stories of people being duped into buying pets that have been illegally imported. Those animals are seldom in good health, have not been inoculated and have often been removed from their mothers when they were too young. When a breed is sought after, those animals can be really expensive to buy, making it a lucrative trade for criminals. Sadly, there is even more cost for buyers and more vet fees for sick animals. In the worst-case scenario, those pets might die because their illness cannot be treated.

The Cats Protection briefing told us that 4 per cent of all cats that were purchased in a one-year period were bought from abroad, which possibly reflects the increase in demand for specific breeds. Although 4 per cent does not seem very much, it equates to 65,000 cats.

In this Parliament, members’ bills are looking at dog sales and dog theft, indicating that the trade in dogs is problematic and attractive to criminals. All those bills are worthy, but, if we are being honest, the issue needs a more comprehensive approach than that piecemeal one. The Government should consider consolidating legislation to ensure that the law can deal with the illegal trade of pets. However, the UK bill will make it more difficult to illegally import animals and make the trade less lucrative, which is a positive outcome. That will help to improve animal welfare and protect buyers from purchasing animals that have not been bred properly and might have been subject to cruelty and neglect.

Although the LCM is to be welcomed, there are concerns about the process surrounding it and the lack of time that we have had to deal with it, which has meant that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee was not able to scrutinise the legislation. The Scottish Government, rather than providing an explanation of why that was or offering reassurance that it would ensure that it did not happen again, has become defensive and dismissive. Doubling down on that tonight is really not helpful.

The minister will be aware that the MV Lord of the Isles was out of service again this week, leaving the people of South Uist without any ferry service—again. The Scottish Government announced a resilience fund. Will the people of South Uist, who are bearing costs for this week’s cancellation, be able to apply for compensation from that fund?

The Scottish Government pledged that boards should spend 1 per cent of their budget on child and adolescent mental health services. However, I understand that only one board has achieved that, while NHS Highland is spending only 0.37 per cent of its budget on CAMHS.

Young people are spending years of their childhood on waiting lists, while others are being rejected from the service altogether. When will all boards fulfil that pledge, and when will the lengthy CAMHS waiting times be dealt with?

To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made on ensuring that 10 per cent of front-line national health service spending is on mental health services. (S6O-04784)