---

Seagulls (Gloucester)

I would be happy to receive anything my hon. Friend wishes to send. I spoke to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) briefly yesterday to say that this debate was taking place and receive his input. Unfortunately, he cannot be here today. As a member state of the European Union, the UK has an obligation to conserve wild bird populations. As my hon. Friend will be aware, that is fulfilled through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which protects all wild birds. However, as I said, I recognise his concerns about gulls in Gloucester in the Bristol road area and the city centre. In specific circumstances, the 1981 Act allows people to apply for a licence from Natural England to take action to control bird species where they cause difficulties and there are no other satisfactory solutions. Action may be taken if Natural England grants a licence for purposes such as preventing the spread of disease, preserving air safety, which my hon. Friend mentioned, conserving wild birds and preserving public health and safety. A build-up of gull populations to problem levels is usually the result of the presence of readily accessible food and the availability of suitable habitats for roosting or breeding. Those are the two key components. There is often food in excess of what gulls would find in the wild and places for them to live. Although licensed control of bird populations can provide temporary relief, efforts must be maintained to remove the food and the access to the habitat that attracts them. Access to food is the single most important factor in boosting gull populations. If it can be denied, the problem may be resolved without recourse to other measures. I urge all local authorities and businesses to help address this problem by avoiding the spillage of foodstuffs, keeping food storage areas secure and bird proof—that is easily said, but it is what needs to be done—making sure that disposal and waste facilities are kept clean and tidy, and limiting or preventing the deliberate feeding of birds by the public, which still takes place in many areas. I have heard that local authorities in Devon and Cornwall, for example, have had good results by using hessian sacks for rubbish disposal, which deters gulls from accessing the food. Obviously, gulls can peck through plastic bags more easily than hessian ones. Natural England can provide advice on other deterrents, such as proofing buildings—my hon. Friend referred to that in Gloucester—and installing netting or metal spikes on buildings to discourage roosting and nesting. Although I accept that such measures are not the whole answer, they are a significant part of the solution. It is only by eliminating the things that gulls find so attractive in our towns and cities that we can hope to find a longer-term solution. The reality is that gulls live for a long time—many can live as long as 20 years—and they are not unintelligent animals, so they learn and modify their behaviour when we put up plastic owls or whatever it might be. Gulls are able to realise what is genuinely a threat to their way of life and what they can ignore. In addition to controlling the availability of food and preventing roosting, I understand that licensed control methods have been effective. I completely share my hon. Friend's concern for animal welfare. We are not advocating something that is cruel and unkind, but there may be situations in which, as a last resort, it might be necessary to take other lines of action. I stress that the licensed control system should be considered only if earlier attempts to manage problems have been shown to be ineffective. General licences that are used for activities that carry a low risk for the conservation or welfare of the protected species can be issued. Personal licences may also be issued for certain other controlled activities. The licensing authority—Natural England—must make sure that the licences it issues are appropriate and take account of the risk of the activities licensed and the conservation status of the species concerned. For that reason, in January this year, following consultation, Natural England amended the relevant general licences and removed the herring gull from almost all general licences. However, it has continued to allow the destruction of nests and eggs of herring gulls to preserve public health and safety. Lesser black-backed gulls may still be controlled for a number of reasons, including to prevent serious damage to livestock and crops and the spread of disease, or for air safety reasons. That reflects the need to mitigate the problems that the herring and lesser black-backed gulls can cause in certain situations and to provide a licensing regime that is not overly burdensome. For great black-backed gulls, a general licence is now available only for the purpose of preserving air safety. I stress that, although there has been a reduction in the available general licences, it is still none the less possible to apply for an individual licence to control those species where they are causing problems. Natural England has struck a sensible and proportionate balance between protecting species and recognising the issues that can arise in areas where species may be over-abundant. However, occasionally it is clear that licensed controls will be necessary. For example, in the breeding season from April to August, removing eggs under licence and replacing them with dummy eggs can reduce urban gull populations if deployed over the longer term and, in the short term, that can reduce the likelihood of attacks from aggressive gulls. My hon. Friend rightly highlighted that in his opening remarks. Those methods have had some success in urban areas, including, I believe, in Gloucester. As my hon. Friend mentioned, my officials in DEFRA's Bristol office recently met officials from local authorities in the south-west, including Gloucester, to discuss the issue. Natural England also attended that meeting. I hope that experiences can continue to be shared and best practice developed to address the problems sometimes caused by urban gulls. If there are lessons to be learned—no doubt there will be some—about alternative techniques that are successful, I encourage local authorities to share that information between them. However, we must not rely on a licensing approach to control gull populations that will provide only a temporary solution to the problem.