Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the minister give way?

I thank Douglas Ross for lodging the motion for debate. I certainly acknowledge that there are areas where we need more effective management and consideration of how we can co-exist with gull populations, but I hope that Douglas Ross will acknowledge that, in the 23 years since Parliament last debated the topic, herring gull populations have collapsed in Scotland—numbers have halved since the 1980s. There are huge pressures on our seabirds. Part of the reason why gulls are moving more into urban areas is that the coastal environments that they would usually inhabit are under pressure and under attack.

I ask Mr Ewing to speak to NatureScot and those who are monitoring our bird populations across Scotland. The fact that herring gulls are on the red list of protected species suggests that the science behind that shows that herring gull populations are collapsing.

Scotland is an internationally important location for herring gulls; we host about a quarter of the global breeding population. The pressures from climate change, food shortages and avian flu have contributed to the worrying declines in seabird populations, but they continue to be under attack in local areas.

I get people writing to me about gulls all the time. A group of people from Burntisland wrote to me this week to say that they are concerned because Forth Ports has demolished a hangar at the old Burntisland Fabrications site. Young, flightless herring gull chicks were stranded on that roof and were killed when the hangar was brought down. Dozens of nesting sites were destroyed. That might hearten Douglas Ross and some members of the Conservative Party, but I say to them that that is a wildlife crime. It is a crime that will be investigated by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Police Scotland, because these birds are protected for a very good reason.

There are options for authorities to control gulls where they are causing a problem. There are three circumstances in which that can take place—when there is a threat to human health and safety, when other non-lethal measures have been ineffective and when it is not harmful to the conservation of the overall population. That is the basis of the current licensing regime.

We have to consider what happens in our towns around waste management, and I point to the situation in Stirling. Tuesday is bin collection day in the centre of town, and we have bagged bin collections. Of course, the gulls flood into Stirling on a Tuesday morning, because they know that they can get an easy meal by opening up the bags. They are smart and intelligent creatures. I have also seen local residents putting out bread for the gulls between the times when waste collection takes place, which exacerbates the problem.

We need an approach that is led by councils, involves NatureScot and the business community and educates local people about the best way to manage gull populations. We also need an approach that respects the fact that these species are under attack and are declining in population. They are protected under law, and we should find a better way to coexist with them.

They have a diagnosis, but they cannot get the medication.

Does the minister also acknowledge that, although there might be some limited increases in populations in some urban areas, we see a decline across Scotland? That is why the species is on the red list and we have to take our international responsibilities seriously if we are to continue to protect it in law.

I thank my colleague Patrick Harvie for securing the debate. For many years, he has been a relentless champion for people in Glasgow, including bus users. It is great that the debate has been brought to the chamber at a critical point for bus services. I also thank Get Glasgow Moving, which has been really successful in working across the parties in the Parliament. I have been pleased to support its petition, which calls for a better process for establishing bus franchising in Scotland.

I hope that the minister has been listening to the debate and recognises the cross-party concern about the process involved in making decisions about setting up franchises, the length of time that that will take and issues regarding the panel. I hope that he will also note that, when the Parliament agreed to the regulation last year, it really only happened because the Deputy Presiding Officer rather than the Presiding Officer was in the chair at the time—the vote was absolutely on a knife edge.

My inbox overflows with issues relating to bus travel, and I have to say that they constitute a real mixed bag. I get great feedback on free bus passes for the under-22s, and I get a lot of people calling for that scheme to be extended. However, having such a pass only works for people if they have a reliable bus service to get on in the first place. The majority of constituents’ emails about bus travel that I receive contain concerns about the quality and state of our bus services.

I pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Valerie Brand, who has for years campaigned for better bus services in her community, particularly in relation to the X10 Glasgow-Balfron-Stirling bus service, which was initially run by First Group and in recent years has been run by McGill’s Buses. Valerie has documented all the issues over the years, including holes in the floors of the bus, water gushing in from windows, inaccessible buses and buses going on fire—an issue that led to a public inquiry into McGill’s by the traffic commissioner, which concluded last year. She has documented poor services, cancellations, online apps not being updated, drivers going past stops and passengers having to request stops because of the poor training of the drivers.

In that community, when people want to know what is going on with the buses, they do not get in touch with McGill’s—they just phone up Val and ask her for the latest chat on the buses. To be honest, I would like Val to run the bus services—certainly the X10—rather than private companies that are utterly unresponsive to public need. However, I will settle for public bus services being run in the public interest if Val is not available to run them.

We need to have bus services that listen to people, listen to everyday needs and run responsive services. I absolutely support the public franchising of bus services in Glasgow. I hope that that will have a positive impact on the X10 service, and I hope that SPT is able to make the right decision in September and progress its case for that.

Across Scotland, there are many different types of public control. We have a situation with the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, where a public body has commissioned a new bus service between Callander and Aberfoyle. It is very successful and is going into its second year. The minister will be aware of the Auchterarder town bus service in his constituency, where a community body has commissioned a bus service.

We have the situation in Glenfarg, where Stagecoach walked away from a bus service that was getting only around 10 or 12 passengers a day. Glenfarg Community Transport Group stepped up, and is now running a 55 service that has 1,200 passengers a week—an incredible turnaround—and a 23 service that attracts 600 passengers a week. Stirling Council is taking an initial first step in taking over the C60 bus service and is running a minibus between Killin and Callander. Many different models could apply to Strathclyde and to rural communities across Scotland.

Ultimately, we need to run bus services in the public interest, but that needs political will and vision. We need to use that huge public investment in concessionary travel schemes and the network support grants to support public bus services that are run in the public interest. Let us get the investment right, let us get the model right and let us see public transport run in the public interest—in rural areas, in urban areas and across the whole of Scotland.

I, too, welcome the minister to his new post. In his statement, he said that it is important that children and their families are able to choose whether medication is right for them. However, the reality is that they are being denied that choice right now. NHS Tayside has told my constituents that, due to a lack of capacity to prescribe medication safely, even children with existing ADHD diagnoses cannot access potentially life-changing medication. Does the minister think that that is acceptable? Will he meet me to discuss the issue?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Please record my vote as yes.

I appreciate that, given that this has been a long stage 2.

Throughout the morning, we have discussed a range of amendments from the STFA and other stakeholders. I feel that a lot of the discussion could have taken place earlier in the development of the bill. Issues often come up during the passage of bills that require further reflection, and we have the summer to do that with this bill. However, I wonder what the process of engagement with stakeholders now looks like from the Government’s point of view. I am sure that stakeholders had concerns way back when the bill was being developed, but those concerns do not seem to have been fully incorporated into the drafting of the bill. What I am looking for is a resolution to those issues and some clear examples from members and the Government of how that can be done before we sit in the chamber at stage 3 and ask, “How do we make sense of this?”