| Allan Wilson:
I join members
in congratulating David Mundell on securing the debate and I thank members
for attending. I think that the debate has been time well spent, despite
the comments of some.
While this issue
might not rank in importance with health, education and crime, it is, as
members have said, a problem for a minority of our fellow citizens. Surely
the Scottish Parliament should consider the interests of the minority,
who also have rights.
The clear message
that I am taking away from tonight's debate is that the seagull problem
is very real and that it needs action. We all recognise the vital role—indeed,
it is a primary role—of Scotland's local authorities in listening and responding
to the needs and views of their local population in this regard.
From what has
been said tonight, it is clear that many communities are concerned about
the nuisance that is caused by seagulls. I know that because, although
I live inland, like Margaret Ewing I represent a constituency that includes
one of Scotland's most famous coastlines—the Clyde estuary. Seagulls should
be a part of the attraction to locals and visitors alike but, as is the
case elsewhere, they are not and we all know why.
As every member
has said, the eating habits of the gulls around the Scottish coastline
have changed; they have become fast-food junkies. Dorothy-Grace Elder rightly
said that it is the people of Scotland and our visitors who have made the
gulls that way. I accept the point that Margaret Ewing made about the decline
in the fishing industry. I am sure that that is a factor in the problem.
Many of us do
not dispose of our litter appropriately. I listened to and was struck by
what Robin Harper had to say. Even when people dispose of their litter
properly, unless bins are gull-proof, the problem remains. The problem
arises from discarded chip pokes, McDonald's cartons and so on, the contents
of which have become so much a part of our staple diet that they are now
part of the seagulls' diet.
We have to do
more to address the problem of litter. That is the real problem; not the
seagulls alone. We have heard tonight about the urban gull—the scavenger
gull—that has become a problem because of those who litter our streets.
If we are to address the problem, it is critical that we cut off the supply
of junk food. We can do more to stop the litter being dropped in the first
place, but the next stage is to ensure that litter and waste are cleared
quickly from our streets. Local authorities have a duty to keep our streets
free of litter.
I will respond
to the point that was raised by Margaret Ewing and David Mundell. In the
normal course of events, it is illegal for any bird, including seagulls,
to be killed or harmed by any person. I am sure that we all agree that
that is as it should be. Local authorities, however, have a statutory duty
to undertake pest control where there is a threat to public health and/or
safety. Local authorities have to determine the circumstances and take
appropriate action, including, if necessary, the humane control of the
pest.
Dr Winnie Ewing
(Highlands and Islands) (SNP): Someone mentioned
the presence of gulls in enormous numbers in the fields where pigs are
in the open air, living in little huts. It seems to me that in any investigation
that the minister undertakes, he should examine whether that is a health
hazard to human beings.
Allan Wilson:
I am happy to do so, although the clear evidence that I have received from
the Executive's chief medical officer is that although seagulls are a nuisance,
they pose no threat to the health of the population. We need, however,
to examine the matter further.
The Executive
has allocated massive increases in funding for local authorities to improve
their waste management. More than £240 million is available in the
strategic waste fund over the next three years. Because of that and in
view of the additional resources that we have allocated—much of it very
recently—I am happy to give Mr Mundell and other members a commitment that
the Executive will consolidate the schemes and financial provisions that
were referred to by Alex Fergusson and others.
I know that
there is good practice out there, but it is not everywhere. Sometimes people
may not know what is being done elsewhere. That fact has become increasingly
clear to me as I have examined the matter following David Mundell and other
members' raising it. I hope that that funding will ease some of the difficulties
that local authorities are clearly experiencing in addressing seagull nuisance
and the wider problems of litter and waste management.
I do not blame
the gulls. In Parliament last Thursday, when David Mundell raised the subject,
I made it clear to him that I would consider the option he suggested. Having
done so in the interim, I am now convinced that there are benefits in what
he and others have proposed tonight. I recognise that there are no simple
solutions to the problem, but measures are in place and will have an impact
on seagull nuisance. I am happy to work with Scotland's local authorities
and members to tackle the problem, and from tonight I shall ask officials
to develop the proposition with some urgency and to consult the RSPB for
its advice on how best to act.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
