Hansard

I apologise in advance if my voice gives out before my time is up. Giant hogweed, Japanese knotweed, Rhododendron ponticum, grey squirrel and American mink are just five of the invasive non-native species that currently threaten Scotland's biodiversity by squeezing out native plant species, competing for food with indigenous animals such as the red squirrel, or killing vulnerable animals, such as the water vole, and ground-nesting birds in the case of the American mink. Those five examples are only a small proportion of the 900-plus non-native species in Scotland that have been identified by Scottish Natural Heritage. Most are benign—indeed, many have made positive contributions to our landscape and heritage, such as the horse chestnut and the little owl. However, a few are serious threats to our native species, with an estimated one in 10 species that are prioritised for conservation action being under threat by non-native species.

The damage that is caused by such species worldwide is reckoned to equate to 5 per cent of the global economy, with the cost to Britain alone being in the order of several billion pounds annually. As a result of climate change and increasing trade and travel, there is a risk that more new species will become established here in the future to further threaten our biodiversity and economic interests such as agriculture, fisheries and forestry.

This is an important time for the Government, industry and the public to recognise the threats that invasive non-native species pose, and to try to reduce the risk of new ones becoming established. That is why we welcome the framework strategy that we are discussing today, and why we are content with the motion. The Labour amendment will be a useful addendum, and we are happy to support it. The Liberal Democrat amendment elaborates what I would have thought is implicit in the motion, but we accept that Parliament should be informed of progress towards achieving the strategy's key aims, so we will also support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

As I said, we welcome the framework strategy and we are particularly heartened to see the various Administrations of Great Britain pulling together on such an important issue. I hope that this co-operative way of working can become a model for dealing in the future with other vital cross-border issues, such as food security.

We note the intention of the strategy to deliver a more balanced focus between reactive management and a more preventive approach, and to make better use of existing resources. We welcome its comprehensive approach to dealing with invasive species in Europe. The true extent of the threat that these species pose has become much better understood in recent times, and we are becoming more aware of the potential consequences of introducing such species. Prevention of their introduction is clearly important, but, to achieve that, people must be made to understand the threats to biodiversity that non-native species pose. There must therefore be on-going action to improve public awareness. Long gone are the days when it was acceptable to freely import plants and animals without thought of the consequences. The intention to promote better access to information about non-native species is to be welcomed.

When such a species is identified, it should be speedily dealt with locally before it can take over. Once an invasive species becomes widely established, it may not be possible to eradicate it completely: indeed, it has been found that full-scale cost-effective eradication is achievable in only a minority of cases. Therefore, we fully support the strategy's objectives, which are:

"To develop effective mechanisms for detection, surveillance, monitoring and responding to any invasive threats posed by both new and established non-native species … To minimise and manage the negative impact of established non-native species in a cost effective manner."

Until now, there has been no cohesive approach to tackling the problem. It is clearly important that existing powers be used more effectively through better liaison and co-ordination between the bodies that have the appropriate powers.

It may also prove necessary to modify legislation to allow a more coherent and comprehensive approach to tackling invasive non-native species. We will look carefully at any legislative proposals by the Government in the future. In that regard, Scottish Conservatives want to see a particular legislative adjustment, to which Jamie McGrigor referred in his intervention. I hope that the Scottish National Party Government will be sympathetic to it. We very much regret that, when the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill went through Parliament last year, the opportunity was not seized to put in place robust measures to prevent the deadly Gyrodactylus salaris parasite from reaching Scotland. As members will know, it has already decimated salmon stocks in Norway. The cabinet secretary said in a recent news release that, should the parasite ever arrive in Scotland, it could result in a

"collapse in our iconic, valuable and important salmon angling heritage."

We still think that there should be a requirement to declare potentially contaminated fishing gear and to decontaminate such gear at ports of entry. We ask the Government to consider amending the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 to include what we proposed in our stage 3 amendment, which was voted down at the time by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The cabinet secretary is known to have been supportive of our proposal—I hope that he still is.

"The Invasive Non-native Species Framework Strategy for Great Britain" is important and forward looking. We welcome the Government's commitment to work co-operatively with all interested parties to achieve the document's key recommendations, and we look forward to a progress report in due course.