Hansard

I welcome the debate. It is good to see that Governments are co-operating on how to deal with non-native species. Their co-operation is welcomed and encouraged by stakeholders.

A number of non-native species have detrimental impacts on our environment, as other members have explained. Some of those impacts are quite unexpected, as was brought home to me when I watched on TV the efforts that were made to ensure that rats did not get on to St Kilda, when a boat was grounded there recently. We should congratulate SNH and others on their speedy response to avert that potential problem. I guess that it was the last thing that most of us thought about when we heard of a ship in difficulty. The strategy, with its aim of raising awareness, ensuring responsibility and putting in place a framework for dealing with such problems, means that if there is a similar occurrence, we might all be a wee bit more aware of the risks.

We are all aware of the species that cause most of the problems. The problem of the grey squirrel has recently been debated in the Parliament, and there have been high-profile campaigns to trap mink and hedgehogs where they cause environmental damage. However, there are many more non-native species of which I am unaware and which I would be unable to identify.

Like others, when I travel abroad I am acutely aware that other countries appear to take a much stricter line than us. Airports and harbours abroad tend to have more publicity discouraging the import of plants and animals. Not only does the strategy talk about working with stakeholders on education, but it emphasises the need for education to be broader so that we all exercise our responsibility to ensure that we do not import invasive species. Rigorous animal controls tend to come as a result of our reaction to diseases such as rabies.

We often hear of exotic animals and reptiles being found in the wild, mainly due to the people who imported them being unable to look after them. No one is saying that people should not own exotic pets, but we need to make it clear that if they plan to own such a pet, they should research the animal's care needs over its lifespan before committing to such a purchase. They must ensure that they can cope with those needs, and only then should they make their purchase through a reputable dealer.

Organisations such as the RSPCA are happy to help out when owners cannot cope with their pets for any reason, and they will usually try to rehouse those pets with people who have a history with and knowledge of the breed. Rather than releasing animals or reptiles into the wild, where they can cause damage to the environment or where they might perish because they are unable to survive alone, people should contact those organisations for help. The strategy's emphasis on individual responsibility and education is therefore welcome.

Education has a part to play in helping us to identify species. Animals are often easier to identify than plants because they tend to be given more publicity. I would struggle to identify many of the non-native plants that have been mentioned, and I am not sure how education can be improved to ensure that all of us have a greater understanding. Although I welcome consideration of education and the potential for greater public awareness, it may be worth focusing education not on turning us all into botanists but on telling people about the potential risks of importing plants to prevent them from coming here in the first place. However, that would mean that we would still need people who can identify species and deal with the problems that they bring. The strategy highlights how much that work would cost—Elaine Murray outlined many of those costs earlier.

Marine ballast creates another problem to which we need to find a solution. The more we trade, and the more our horizons increase, the more shipping movements take place. Ships can carry microscopic algae and sea life from very far afield. There are already concerns that much of the algae and fish disease that affects shellfish and fish farming has come from shipping movements. It is difficult to see how we can deal with those issues and protect our environment. I am glad that the strategy at least acknowledges the problem, which I hope signals that there will be an attempt to find a solution to it.

The report rightly emphasises the impact of climate change, which other members have mentioned. Climate change means that exotic species survive here that would not previously have done so. It also means that our native species can struggle to survive, and an invasive species can often be the final straw for them. Climate change is well recognised, and measures to address it have a great deal of public support. We should build on that public support and use it as a vehicle to spread knowledge and awareness of the problem of non-native species.

Native species should always be encouraged. I have a bugbear, which is that, for many years, I have disliked the use of non-native species in forestry. It has been proven that the quality of timber from those species is not high because of our environment and climate. I have a plea: can more work be done to consider the use and management of our native forests? At this time of year, people appreciate the fact that our native species are not only more environmentally friendly, but beautiful.

I welcome the debate, and I urge the Government to continue to work with other Administrations in the United Kingdom. Our request for a review of existing legislation will only strengthen current actions. I therefore urge the minister to accept the Labour amendment.