Hansard

I have often found it helpful, in preparing for such debates, to consider whether there is a local angle so that I can embellish my thoughts with some local colour. Unfortunately, on this occasion, one contact—who shall remain nameless—whose views I sought on invasive non-native species was clearly confused. He asked, entirely uncharitably, whether I was referring to the various SNP ministers who had been spotted parading through Orkney over the summer. He went on to note, however, that their presence did not seem to be, in Mr Lochhead's words, "insidious and … irreversible", as winter and our recent storms appeared to have put paid to such fair-weather invasions.

Richard Lochhead can rest assured that I reprimanded his accuser for his discourtesy. Although it is undoubtedly tempting to see Mr Russell as some form of giant ministerial hogweed, I am on record as welcoming those summer visits—so long as they stop short of the approach taken by wartime GIs, to whom Roseanna Cunningham referred. I will rejoice even more if they lead subsequently to action being taken by the Government in response to my constituents' needs. However, having spent all yesterday afternoon listening to speeches that strayed far and wide from the not entirely obvious point of a debate on the British-Irish Council, I will not fall into a similar trap.

As has been acknowledged by all the members who have spoken this afternoon, this is an important debate. I particularly enjoyed the speeches from Peter Peacock and Kenny Gibson, and I can confirm that Ian McKee has benign status.

As the joint governmental response makes clear, invasive non-native species pose a serious threat to biodiversity and economic interests in Britain. The cabinet secretary himself has conservatively estimated the cost to Scotland at around £200 million. The response is also right to highlight the increased risk that has been brought about by trends in global trade and travel. To those two factors, I add the threat of climate change. The response bears testimony to the partnership approach taken by all the Administrations in Britain and states unambiguously the need for that to continue. The Government's motion reaffirms that commitment, which is very much to be welcomed.

That said, as Jim Hume set out clearly and persuasively, implementation of the strategy can and should be more localised and should enable bodies such as Tweed Forum to use their expertise to achieve the strategy's objectives. For that to happen, as the cabinet secretary has accepted, a clearer legal framework is required—a point that underpins Elaine Murray's amendment, which we have no difficulty in supporting. However, the strategy's success will almost certainly have resource implications. It will be difficult to provide those resources but, as the strategy accepts—and as most members have acknowledged—delaying action to tackle alien species invariably leads to higher costs because of the damage that is done and the complexity of putting things right.

I am pleased that our amendment has attracted support from the Government and Opposition parties, but it would be helpful to hear from the minister, in his winding-up speech, what early thoughts the Government has had on resource allocation and how better value might be derived from the resources that are already available.

Orkney is perhaps afforded a little more protection than other parts of the country. As an archipelago with the formidable barrier of the Pentland Firth between us and mainland Scotland, our remoteness can play to our advantage. That is the case not just in relation to the introduction of alien species, but in the context of disease outbreaks and disease control. Nevertheless, as RSPB Scotland makes clear in its briefing, offshore island ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the introduction of non-native vertebrate predators and herbivores. Like Peter Peacock's confessed obsession with slipper limpets, that issue will not be found in any of my campaign literature but it is an important consideration nonetheless.

For example, the impact of rats on the bird population on Canna is well documented. Rats were initially introduced to the island as stowaways on fishing boats, and the problem started to emerge only as milder winters failed to keep the population under control. Dealing with the problem required concerted and sustained effort over around three years. Thankfully now rat free, the situation on Canna illustrates the difficulties and costs that are involved in tackling infestations once they have escalated.

Egilsay, in my constituency, has experienced similar difficulties, although not to the same extent. The island boasts not only an impressive bird population that includes lapwings, snipe and the occasional corncrake, but the increasingly rare great yellow bumblebee. However, concerns are growing about the number of rats on Egilsay and their impact on local biodiversity. From my discussions with islanders, local RSPB staff and others, it appears that a genuinely difficult calculation has to be made with regard to the need for and the timing and costs of the upheaval that would be entailed by any action. History and common sense appear to suggest that the strategy's hierarchical approach of prevention, early detection and rapid eradication, and long-term control and containment is the right one.

Welcome though the framework strategy for Great Britain is, that is all it is. It requires to be fleshed out with action, which means not only the legislation that the cabinet secretary and Elaine Murray referred to but the training and awareness raising that Rhoda Grant mentioned, improved co-ordination and an increased capacity to respond to and effectively to mitigate the risks presented by non-native invasive species.

The debate has been useful in teasing out some very complex issues and identifying the challenges ahead. In that context, I echo Nanette Milne's comments on the need to maintain the partnership approach that was initiated by the previous Scottish Executive and, I am happy to say, has been embraced and taken forward by the current ministerial team.

I caution ministers against heeding any of the siren voices on the SNP back benches urging them to declare epidemiological independence for Scotland. Such calls were made during previous debates on foot-and-mouth disease. However, they stand science and sense entirely on their heads, and I was delighted to hear Mr Lochhead give those nationalist flat-earthers no cause for optimism.

I welcome the Government's motion, which is improved by the amendments from Jim Hume and Elaine Murray, and I look forward to hosting future invasions of my constituency by the giant ministerial hogweed, the Moray knotweed and other non-native ministerial species when the weather improves.