Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

That is contrary to your answer to the written question, which said:

“The Scottish Government was unable to provide a definitive response to question S6W-41921, as the pilot plan will require continuous updates and adjustments. Consequently, it is not possible to confirm a date for when the plan will be fully finalised.”—[Written Answers, 9 December 2025; S6W-42266.]

I will, but I am more than happy for this to be a four-way, six-way, eight-way or 10-way discussion, because the issue affects all our constituencies and regions. I will give way to the minister after I make this point. He says that we are not in the breeding season, which I agree on—we are in December—but in his own written answer he said that he cannot provide a date for the gull management plan.

This group of amendments is on marine planning, protection and enforcement. Therefore, we have to look at how we enforce any wrongdoing in our marine environment. For three decades, we, as a country, have been very well served by an aviation asset based in Inverness that has been involved in exactly what this group is talking about—the enforcement and protection of the marine environment and the waters around Scotland.

I come at this issue as a local MSP who has been approached by constituents affected by the Scottish Government’s decision to dispose of the two marine aviation aircraft that look after the marine environment. I know that other MSPs on the committee have been contacted about this, too, and there have already been questions in the chamber on the matter.

This element of the bill provides an opportunity for further dialogue, and I am approaching the issue in what I hope is a constructive way, so as to get answers from the Government. I wish to state clearly from the outset that what I am asking for is a review of the Government’s decision. Ideally, that review would accept the shortcomings of the Government’s decision and would provide an opportunity to reintroduce an asset that has served us well for 30 years.

That is the next stage, however. The first step is to ascertain the impact of removing the facility, not just the two aircraft—and I will come on to speak about what has replaced them. The hugely skilled, dedicated and committed staff who worked on the aircraft are passionate about protecting the marine environment and want to continue to do that to the best of their ability, but they need the best tools in order to do that. The decision by the marine directorate and the Scottish Government to move away from the aircraft was clearly taken on financial grounds. I understand that they will not be the cheapest vehicles to use, but they are the best. They have been replaced by three ageing vessels, which are extremely slow to operate, in what is a vast area.

If we are seeking to protect our marine environment, we need a quick and reliable service when something is going on that needs to be addressed and captured, so that enforcement action can be taken. It is not possible to monitor the fifth-largest exclusive economic zone—EEZ—in the world, as was previously done by the two aircraft operating out of the base at Inverness, with drones and three very slow vessels. It is simply not possible.

I would like to hear from the cabinet secretary and the Government what they believe the outcomes and implications of their decision have been and whether they accept that our marine environment is not protected in the same way now as it was prior to those aircraft being lost.

I should add that the aircraft are still sat there at Inverness. They have been put up for sale. To my knowledge, there are no interested buyers; they have certainly not been sold. If that was intended to be a capital receipt for the Government, it has not been realised. The use of the drones and the vessels does not protect areas that should be protected, and certainly not as quickly.

The main aim of the formerly used aircraft was to act as a deterrent. They were called on for time-sensitive missions—to catch a trawler in a closed box, for example. The aircraft could get up in the air very quickly, with their skilled, dedicated and committed staff, capture images and send them back to the marine directorate. Enforcement could take place very rapidly. Now, if someone knows that the ships that will be chasing them in order to take the same images are hours or potentially days away, the deterrent is gone. The trawlers are in and out of the closed boxes before the vessels have even turned round to try and catch them. We have lost a crucial deterrent. Therefore, a lot of the amendments in the group will be the poorer for the lack of a deterrent and an enforcement mechanism, which we previously had, as a country, and which was lost.

There was also a great deal of concern at the lack of engagement with those involved in the operation prior to the decision being taken. They had operated successfully for 30 years, but the Government very quickly announced its view and said what was going to happen and what the replacement was going to be.

My amendment 264 proposes a review to ascertain what has happened and how enforcement and the deterrent have been affected. If the Government and the marine directorate had taken a bit more time in the process of getting to this stage and had been engaged with the staff, they would perhaps have seen the benefit of retaining the asset that they have had for so long.

I will sum up now, as I am more interested in hearing the response to the amendments from the Government—and I will perhaps intervene when the cabinet secretary is responding. This issue is not going to go away. We have had questions in Parliament, but we also have an opportunity here. The aircraft have not been sold; they are sitting idle at Inverness, ready to be redeployed at a moment’s notice. If the Government were to undertake an honest, open and transparent review, looking at all the information, and if the review found that we now have a big capability gap, there is something to fill that gap, which is something that we have used successfully for 30 years.

I hope that the Government will support the amendment and the proposal to simply have a review. Then, at the next stage, if the review says that we should go back to what we have done in the past, the skilled crews and staff, as well as the aircraft, would be available to be deployed. That would be a very welcome move.

I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s remarks.