Hansard

I thank Audrey Nicoll for lodging the motion and for securing the debate, which has been quite fascinating. Members have underlined that non-native invasive species are one of the main drivers of nature loss in this country, but there is also synergy with climate change—the two work together to damage our environment.

In a week in which we have been intensively discussing the budget in the chamber, the issue gives us one of the clearest examples of the impact of preventative spend. If we can tackle non-native invasive species early, we will save society a huge amount of money further down the line.

A number of members have celebrated the work of volunteers, charities and partnerships. David Torrance mentioned the amazing work that is happening with restoration Forth. We are making progress. For example, big progress has been made in controlling grey squirrels, and there is good progress on tackling rhododendron and giant hogweed. All that work needs co-ordination and support, and it needs organisations such as the Forth Rivers Trust in my region, which does amazing work in bringing together landowners and volunteers to take action and tackle issues such as the expansion of giant hogweed. It has done that successfully in the Allan Water, but that has taken a huge amount of effort.

That takes me back to the point about funding that a number of members have underlined. This is about spend to save. If we spend money on tackling non-native invasive species now, we will save later. It is disappointing that there has been an in-year cut to the nature restoration fund, which was established when the Greens were working in government with the Scottish National Party. The minister needs to consider how we can reinstate funding, particularly the council funding strand, which has been cut. The £5 million is an absolute drop in the ocean in comparison with the public pay settlement, and we are stacking up costly problems unless we can empower councils to restore nature and tackle invasive species. It is really important that we do not lose momentum on that.

Members have received briefings from a number of charities that have called for multiyear funding, because we cannot tackle invasive species in only 12 months. Invasive species do not follow budget cycles. We need to look at growing cycles and ecological cycles. That means that multiyear funding is needed, otherwise the money that we spend in one year will be erased by the growth and distribution of species in the years that follow.

I will mention two species very briefly. According to a briefing from Woodland Trust Scotland, 140,000 hectares of rhododendron ponticum need to be treated, predominantly on the west coast, because the species is continuing to invade.

Funding is important, but it is not just about funding. We have an opportunity in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill to place a duty and responsibility on landowners to deal with the species. We could also introduce a national register of ancient woodland. Of course, the Scottish Government could work with the UK Government to put in place a retail ban for the species, which would really help.

We also need to widen the debate. We have a list of non-native invasive species, but there are questions about non-native game birds, such as pheasants and partridges. More than 40 million game birds are released into the environment across the UK every year, yet we know from the science that there are concerns about the spread of bird flu and predation of reptiles, and that there is an ecological imbalance when we so many of these birds are roaming around our countryside and interrupting our natural ecology.

There is much to consider, particularly in the context of the proposed natural environment bill. The minister could and should consider licensing, particularly in relation to non-native game birds. I look forward to the issue coming back to committees of the Parliament and to our considering ways in which we can take on some of the challenges and provide some certainty.