Calls for summit to tackle 'deadly' seagulls amid fears someone could be killed
MSPs warned that Scots risk losing their lives over the 'growing problem' of 'nuisance' gulls during a debate at Holyrood on Thursday.
A Scotland-wide summit to tackle 'deadly' seagulls must be held amid warnings someone could be killed, the Scottish Parliament has heard.
MSPs warned that Scots risk losing their lives over the 'growing problem' of 'nuisance' gulls during a debate at Holyrood on Thursday.
One MSP said Scots are being left 'scared, attacked and traumatised'. But another said we should not "demonise" the animals.
SNP Agriculture minister Jim Fairlie had already promised to hold a seagull summit in the north of Scotland but was urged to extend it to the whole of the country.
Former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross - who called the debate - said lives were at risk.
Fellow Tory Rachael Hamilton said 'aggressive' seagulls had attacked seven children in one month last year in Eyemouth, with one girl 'left with gashes to her scalp and blood running down her face'.
The Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire MSP called for action on the 'growing nuisance', which she said posed a health and safety risk to residents.
Despite rising complaints from locals, though, she said NatureScot's licensing system to control the birds was bureaucratic and failing to solve the issue.
'I think we need a summit,' she said. 'I don't think we just need a summit in Moray, we need a summit across Scotland.'
Hamilton said the debate was 'important' as she criticised what she said was a lack of action from the Scottish Government.
She told MSPs: 'Absolutely nothing is getting done. I don't believe the Government are listening to us because the issue continues in my constituency in Eyemouth.
'Aggressive seagull behaviour continues to cause a real concern amongst businesses, amongst tourists, amongst everybody that has anything to do along the harbour.
'And it is not just a seasonal nuisance. It is a serious, growing health risk. It's a safety risk, particularly for children and elderly residents.'
She said one business owner had described the situation as 'people being scared, attacked and traumatised'.
Opening the debate, Ross said people often 'smirk' when hearing that the Scottish Parliament is debating the problems around gulls – but he said it was an 'extremely serious issue'.
The Highlands and Islands MSP said constituents have told him they are worried about leaving their homes for fear of being 'divebombed', while others have suffered mental health issues thanks to a lack of sleep caused by noisy gulls.
One resident, he said, is spending £2,000 a year to remove nests from her home.
'People should not have to keep living in fear of being divebombed by these menaces on a daily basis, and are crying out for action,' he said.
He accused NatureScot of having a conflict of interest as the body responsible for both the licensing to control birds and to conserve them.
He went on: 'The behaviour of the SNP's quango NatureScot confirms they have lost the plot. They have told people to protect themselves with umbrellas and even suggested dogs as a deterrent.
'The time has come to break up NatureScot. There is a clear conflict of interest in the fact they are responsible for considering licences to control gulls but are also responsible for protecting bird numbers.
'If the minister cannot see that is a problem, then he is divorced from reality.
'The strength of the cross-party support in my debate today should be all the SNP government need to finally act before we see someone killed due to being attacked by a gull.'
Agriculture minister Fairlie said that while people often 'chuckle and laugh' about the issue of gulls, he warned it was 'deadly serious'.
But he told MSPs that he could not intervene on NatureScot to change the licensing system because it would leave the Government open to judicial review.
He urged people to stop feeding the birds, which he said was the primary reason for the issue.
The birds have been an increasingly common site in urban areas as they leave their natural habitat in search of food.
He said: 'We have to work out what it is that is causing the issue in the first place.
'We are feeding them – it is quite simple. We are creating habitat, and we are creating feeding stations which are allowing gulls to inhabit our space, and that is now quite clearly coming into conflict.'
He added: 'We have got to try and limit food waste and public littering. We have got to take away these feeding opportunities.'
SNP MSP Christine Grahame warned against 'demonising' gulls, which she described as 'clever, adaptable' animals.
'Language such as 'mugging', 'menace' can be applied to us, our fellow counterparts,' she said, 'but it is not appropriate to demonise an animal simply looking for food.
'Anthropomorphising is tempting but not helpful.'
NatureScot has been approached for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
38 minutes ago
- The National
Keir Starmer is in an historic mess. There's only one person to blame
KEIR Starmer's difficulties with his Orwellian 'welfare reforms' continue to mount. Those "reforms" of course consist of cruel cuts to the benefits received by some of the most vulnerable people in society – benefits which as a disabled person myself I know from personal experience are already exceptionally difficult to prove entitlement to. What's more, despite the impression to the contrary which Starmer's ghouls like to present, they are not out of work benefits. Even if they were, Starmer, Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall have never coherently explained how cutting the meagre support for disabled people will assist them into work, nor where exactly all the employers queueing up to offer work to disabled people are. Now a large number of Labour MPs, backed by the SNP, the LibDems and the Greens, have signed a wrecking amendment to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill which would kill it off even more effectively than the bill would kill off disabled people. The bill is due to be debated and voted on in the Commons on Tuesday of next week. As things currently stand, the government does not have the numbers to force the bill through. The Tories, whose main objection is that it's not cruel and nasty enough, smell blood in the water, and have signalled that they will not vote with the UK Government. Starmer has handled the prospect of a backbench rebellion in the same high-handed, arrogant and patrician manner in which he dealt with those Labour MPs who retained a sense of why they been elected and voted with the SNP in the early weeks of Starmer's government to axe the heinous two-child cap on benefits. Those MPs were suspended from the Parliamentary Labour party. Starmer's first instinct when faced with this brewing rebellion was to threaten his allies, telling the potential rebels that they'd be excluded from government positions unless they got back into line. That backfired, and the number of Labour MPs who had signed the rebels' wrecking amendment continued to grow. Reportedly, cabinet ministers including Reeves and Health Secretary Wes Streeting – presumably on a break from courting private healthcare companies for donations – phoned rebel MPs and told them that the vote would be one of confidence in Starmer's leadership. UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting reportedly rang around trying to get MPs to support the cutsThis had the effect of increasing the number of Labour MPs who signed the amendment from 108 to 123. Starmer patronisingly dismissed the growing anger in his party as "noises off" and in consequence, by Thursday the number of Labour MPs who had signed the amendment had increased to 126. It cannot be stressed enough just how remarkable this development is. Starmer was elected with a landslide majority in the Commons less than a year ago, his government should still be in its political honeymoon period, impervious to challenge and able to govern supreme. That the Prime Minister is currently staring at the prospect of defeat at the hands of its own MPs is unprecedented at this stage of the term in office of a British Government with a solid Commons majority. That this has come to pass is entirely due to Starmer, his lies and duplicity about change, and his staggering lack of political ability. Labour's newly elected MPs are facing the realisation that they may be political one-hit wonders and as such they have nothing to lose by rebelling against the government. Even twelve Labour MPs representing Scottish seats, normally the Labour party's most reliable lobby fodder, have signed the rebel amendment. That is one-third of Labour's Scottish contingent in the Commons. This is a direct challenge to Anas Sarwar, who has given his backing to the benefits cuts. READ MORE: Can Keir Starmer find any policy that Anas Sarwar won't support? At First Minister's Questions in Holyrood today, First Minister John Swinney attacked Sarwar for his supine obedience to Starmer, even though these cuts will, by the Labour government's own figures, throw 250,000 disabled people, including 50,000 children, into poverty. Anti-poverty and disabled rights organisations calculate that the true number could be even higher, with in excess of 400,000 disabled people being driven into poverty as a direct consequence of Labour's cuts. Swinney remarked that Sarwar's willingness to blindly follow Starmer's line on cuts to benefits for disabled people is a sign that he "will not be standing up for Scotland any time soon". That about sums it up. This piece is an extract from today's REAL Scottish Politics newsletter, which is emailed out at 7pm every weekday with a round-up of the day's top stories and exclusive analysis from the Wee Ginger Dug. To receive our full newsletter including this analysis straight to your email inbox, click HERE and click the "+" sign-up symbol for the REAL Scottish Politics
The Guardian
39 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Labour's welfare revolt: ministers should take MPs more seriously
MPs and the parliamentary process rarely get a good press. Most citizens do not trust either of them much. As a result, the decline of parliament's role in national life has been a familiar topic for decades. Yet, when push comes to shove, as it has done again this week with Labour's important backbench revolt against the government's welfare plans, it turns out that MPs actually matter quite a lot. By Thursday morning, more than 120 Labour MPs had signalled opposition to the government's universal credit and personal independence payment bill. With the bill due to be voted on next Tuesday in the House of Commons, and with Labour's working majority currently standing at 165, that level of rebellion was irresistible. If the bill as it stands had come to a vote, Labour would have lost. This would have been a fundamental humiliation for Sir Keir Starmer, almost a year to the day after Labour was elected. Speaking to journalists two days earlier, Sir Keir had stuck to his guns. There was a 'clear moral case' for the bill's reforms, he insisted. A day later, he dismissed the revolt as 'noises off'. Those responses were tin-eared. Back in the Commons on Thursday, the prime minister had to face reality. He admitted talks were now taking place 'to get this right'. They would continue over the coming days, so that MPs 'can begin making change together on Tuesday'. There were claims on Thursday night that a big climbdown was taking shape. That seems inevitable, but it is not yet clear exactly what the changes to be put to MPs on Tuesday will be. The rebels say eligibility for disability benefits is being tightened too fiercely, and that the health related element of universal credit is being cut too hard. But ministers remain publicly committed to pressing on and making savings. Finding enough common ground for concessions that will definitively head off a government defeat is hard, since it involves a fundamental clash of approaches. Backbench revolts are a feature of modern politics. Yet this confrontation between Labour and its MPs is unusually large by any standards. It is a reminder that big majorities can bring as many headaches as small majorities more obviously do. Above all, it is a reminder that backbench revolts tend to be the visible tip of a larger iceberg of dissatisfaction with a government. Many of the Labour MPs who are challenging the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, over welfare reform would not describe themselves as natural rebels. But their willingness to join a revolt on this major issue should not be dismissed as a one-off. It is likely to represent something broader too. This is why the complaints about the No 10 operation should be taken seriously. Sir Keir's staff may or may not be 'over-excitable boys', as some complaints have it, or operate the bunker mentality that is sometimes alleged. The fact is, however, that this revolt was visible long ago, but was not addressed in a professional manner. The policy was wrong. The opposition to it was broadly based. But the response of Labour's parliamentary managers and political strategists was hopeless. They did not take MPs seriously enough. In a manner echoing the way Dominic Cummings displayed such disdain for Tory backbenchers after 2019, Labour ministers and staffers seem to have thought that unhappy MPs do not matter. Sir Keir and his team are discovering just how wrong they were. It serves them right. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Leader Live
40 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Calls for Scotland-wide seagull summit amid warnings someone could be killed
Former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross, who called a debate on the issue at Holyrood, warned that Scots risk losing their lives over the 'growing problem' of 'nuisance' gulls. Fellow Tory Rachael Hamilton said a nationwide summit must be held to tackle the issue as she warned that Scots are being left 'scared, attacked and traumatised'. Agriculture minister Jim Fairlie had already promised to hold a seagull summit in the north of Scotland but Ms Hamilton, who represents the south of Scotland, said a summit for the whole country is needed. The Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire MSP said 'aggressive' seagulls had attacked seven children in one month last year in Eyemouth, with one girl 'left with gashes to her scalp and blood running down her face'. She called for action on the 'growing nuisance', which she said posed a health and safety risk to residents. Despite rising complaints from locals, though, she said NatureScot's licensing system to control the birds was bureaucratic and failing to solve the issue. 'I think we need a summit,' she said. 'I don't think we just need a summit in Moray, we need a summit across Scotland.' Ms Hamilton said the debate was 'important' as she criticised what she said was a lack of action from the Scottish Government. She told MSPs: 'Absolutely nothing is getting done. I don't believe the Government are listening to us because the issue continues in my constituency in Eyemouth. 'Aggressive seagull behaviour continues to cause a real concern amongst businesses, amongst tourists, amongst everybody that has anything to do along the harbour. 'And it is not just a seasonal nuisance. It is a serious, growing health risk. It's a safety risk, particularly for children and elderly residents.' She said one business owner had described the situation as 'people being scared, attacked and traumatised'. NatureScot and the SNP have ignored this problem for far too long. I'm bringing forward a debate in Parliament today to demand action to control the menace of gulls in our communities. — Douglas Ross MSP (@Douglas4Moray) June 26, 2025 MSPs debated the issue on Thursday, the last day of Parliament before the summer recess. Opening the debate, Mr Ross said people often 'smirk' when hearing that the Scottish Parliament is debating the problems around gulls – but he said it was an 'extremely serious issue'. The Highlands and Islands MSP said constituents have told him they are worried about leaving their homes for fear of being 'divebombed', while others have suffered mental health issues thanks to a lack of sleep caused by noisy gulls. One resident, he said, is spending £2,000 a year to remove nests from her home. 'People should not have to keep living in fear of being divebombed by these menaces on a daily basis, and are crying out for action,' he said. He accused NatureScot of having a conflict of interest as the body responsible for both the licensing to control birds and to conserve them. He went on: 'The behaviour of the SNP's quango NatureScot confirms they have lost the plot. They have told people to protect themselves with umbrellas and even suggested dogs as a deterrent. 'The time has come to break up NatureScot. There is a clear conflict of interest in the fact they are responsible for considering licences to control gulls but are also responsible for protecting bird numbers. 'If the minister cannot see that is a problem, then he is divorced from reality. 'The strength of the cross-party support in my debate today should be all the SNP Government need to finally act before we see someone killed due to being attacked by a gull.' Jim Fairlie, the minister for agriculture, said while people often 'chuckle and laugh' about the issue of gulls, he warned it was 'deadly serious'. But he told MSPs that he could not intervene on NatureScot to change the licensing system because it would leave the Government open to judicial review. He urged people to stop feeding the birds, which he said was the primary reason for the issue. The birds have been an increasingly common site in urban areas as they leave their natural habitat in search of food. He said: 'We have to work out what it is that is causing the issue in the first place. 'We are feeding them – it is quite simple. We are creating habitat, and we are creating feeding stations which are allowing gulls to inhabit our space, and that is now quite clearly coming into conflict.' He added: 'We have got to try and limit food waste and public littering. We have got to take away these feeding opportunities.' SNP MSP Christine Grahame warned against 'demonising' gulls, which she described as 'clever, adaptable' animals. 'Language such as 'mugging', 'menace' can be applied to us, our fellow counterparts,' she said, 'but it is not appropriate to demonise an animal simply looking for food. 'Anthropomorphising is tempting but not helpful.' A NatureScot spokesperson said: 'We understand gulls can sometimes cause problems in our towns and cities. 'At the same time, gull populations are facing serious declines. NatureScot has a duty to balance health and safety concerns with gull conservation. 'Over the last five years we have supported many individuals, businesses and communities to better manage gulls without the need to kill the birds or destroy their nests. 'As a result, the number of licence applications to destroy nests and eggs and kill chicks has reduced, from 2,633 in 2023 to 1,601 in 2024.' The spokesperson said in the longer term, Scots will 'need to find ways to live with gulls and other wildlife'. They added: 'We will continue to work with local authorities to ensure that collaborative gull management plans are put in place for future years, with a focus on effective preventative measures, deterrents, changes to behaviour and guidance.'
