Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the minister for early sight of his statement. This is the first time that I have been able to officially welcome him to his new post. He takes it over at a really challenging time, as he has just alluded to.

When we have such a massive increase in diagnoses over such a short period of time, it is obvious that something catastrophic has occurred. I put it to the minister that the Scottish Government has not been entirely honest with the public or the families who have suffered on the waiting list. The gathering of data has not been transparent and the Scottish Government has once again been cherry picking and manipulating the data to fit its narrative. If neurodivergent conditions were never supposed to fall under child and adolescent mental health services, why did the Scottish Government allow that to occur in the data in the first place, and for such a length of time?

In March 2024, the workforce census of the Royal College of Psychiatrists reported that the number of general psychiatrists, including locum rolls, had remained unchanged for more than a decade. According to freedom of information data that I obtained, only 32 per cent of children were seen for an assessment within the timescales recommended by the national autism implementation team.

I understand that not everyone will need or want a diagnosis, but, given the increase in demand, what is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that there are staff to diagnose such conditions in order to give children access to the support that they need, where eligibility for support requires a diagnosis? In situations in which a diagnosis is not wanted, what is the Scottish Government doing to better support children by providing them with an outlet through community activity?

In 2023-24, the Scottish National Party pledged £55 million for neurodevelopmental conditions services, yet it did not include dedicated funding for such services in this year’s budget.

I thank my colleague Douglas Ross for bringing the debate to the chamber.

I listened to the interaction between Douglas Ross and Christine Grahame about terminology. As a Troon boy, and having had the great pleasure for 30 years of doing my morning run along the beach with my dog, I can assure members that “dive-bombing” is a very good description of what gulls do. Fortunately, my dog was smart enough and big enough to take care of herself—

Of course I will give way to Christine Grahame.

It is a very apt description of what gulls have been doing for years.

I acknowledge that a balance must be struck between managing nuisance birds and managing conservation and the wider impacts on the ecosystem. However, we must also recognise that there is an inherent risk to people and property as gull numbers increase in human-populated areas.

I recognise that some councils in my constituency are better than others at managing nuisance birds, and some face different challenges in that area. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency uses East Ayrshire Council’s seagull management plan as an example of good work. However, that does not mean that there are no seagull-related issues in East Ayrshire, and even the best councils have limited tools at their disposal.

A constituent of mine moved to Kilmarnock in 2021. In his own words, he

“spent a considerable amount of money on this property including the back garden area for the benefit of my grandchildren. The last two summers have been ruined with the council’s inability to do something about these birds and the pest they have become. My rear garden has become a no-go zone in the summer due to constant swooping when the young gulls are born, and the constant large amounts of toxic bird waste being deposited over my garden area.

I realise that these birds are protected but in doing so then the council/ Scottish Government must be responsible for the impact they are having on residents lives.”

When I raised the issue with the council on behalf of my constituent, it told me that it has no statutory duty to take action against the gulls and that it has no statutory powers to enforce the changes in behaviour that are needed to make a meaningful impact in such situations. In fact, it has said that it cannot stop people from feeding birds. However, it tries to encourage responsible feeding and offers education to that effect in the cases that are brought to its attention.

Neither does the council have any legal powers to require other building owners to follow the hierarchy of controls that are referred to by NatureScot before ultimately applying to it for a licence to remove nests and eggs. That is an action of a responsible property owner.

The approach to gull management needs to change to a proactive whole-system approach, working with residents, businesses and property owners, who each have a role to play. Not only do councils and businesses need the ability to get a licence for control measures, as my colleague Douglas Ross has laid out, but councils need more powers for enforcement in situations where the building owners and occupiers are documented and not managing their premises responsibly.

Gulls are traditionally associated with the sea, and my constituent lives inland, so the only reason that the gulls are there is for a food source. Their natural behaviour and environment have changed because of human interaction. Unless councils are given greater enforcement powers, along with the powers to manage the population, those issues will persist and grow. I hope that the minister will address those key issues in his response.

I once again thank my colleague Douglas Ross for raising this important issue.

It is a very apt description of what gulls have been doing for years.

I acknowledge that a balance must be struck between managing nuisance birds and managing conservation and the wider impacts on the ecosystem. However, we must also recognise that there is an inherent risk to people and property as gull numbers increase in human-populated areas.

I recognise that some councils in my constituency are better than others at managing nuisance birds, and some face different challenges in that area. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency uses East Ayrshire Council’s seagull management plan as an example of good work. However, that does not mean that there are no seagull-related issues in East Ayrshire, and even the best councils have limited tools at their disposal.

A constituent of mine moved to Kilmarnock in 2021. In his own words, he

“spent a considerable amount of money on this property, including the back garden area for the benefit of my grandchildren. The last two summers have been ruined, with the council’s inability to do something about these birds and the pests that they have become. My rear garden has become a no-go zone in the summer, due to the constant swooping when the young gulls are born and the constant large amounts of toxic bird waste being deposited over my garden area. I realise these birds are protected but, in doing so, the council and the Scottish Government must be responsible for the impact that they are having on residents’ lives.”

When I raised the issue with the council on behalf of my constituent, it told me that it has no statutory duty to take action against the gulls and that it has no statutory powers to enforce the changes in behaviour that are needed to make a meaningful impact in such situations. In fact, it has said that it cannot stop people from feeding birds. However, it tries to encourage responsible feeding and offers education to that effect in the cases that are brought to its attention.

Neither does the council have any legal powers to require other building owners to follow the hierarchy of controls that are referred to by NatureScot before ultimately applying to it for a licence to remove nests and eggs. That is an action of a responsible property owner.

The approach to gull management needs to change to a proactive whole-system approach, working with residents, businesses and property owners, who each have a role to play. Not only do councils and businesses need the ability to get a licence for control measures, as my colleague Douglas Ross has laid out, but councils need more powers for enforcement in situations where the building owners and occupiers are documented and not managing their premises responsibly.

Gulls are traditionally associated with the sea, and my constituent lives inland, so the only reason that the gulls are there is for a food source. Their natural behaviour and environment have changed because of human interaction. Unless councils are given greater enforcement powers, along with the powers to manage the population, those issues will persist and grow. I hope that the minister will address those key issues in his response.

I once again thank my colleague Douglas Ross for raising this important issue.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I, too, would have voted yes.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry, but I have a bad connection here. I would have voted no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry. Again, my app did not connect. I would have voted yes.