Chamber
Plenary, 30 Oct 2008
30 Oct 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Non-native Invasive Species
The debate has been unexpectedly good. The Scottish Conservatives recognise the importance of controlling the invasive non-native species that threaten biodiversity in Scotland and the UK.
As our uniquely and identifiably Scottish biodiversity is a cornerstone of our natural and cultural heritage that supports and enhances not just our tourism industry but our daily quality of life, any threat to it must be taken seriously. I have to confess that, until recently, I was unaware of the startling fact that, after habitat loss, invasive non-native species are considered the largest threat to biodiversity worldwide. As Scottish Natural Heritage has identified 988 non-native species in Scotland, the issue certainly demands concerted action. As Nanette Milne said, today's debate is a welcome first step in that direction.
Not all non-native species are a threat to biodiversity, although well documented examples such as the Japanese knotweed, which the cabinet secretary and Elaine Murray referred to, the grey squirrel, which Jamie McGrigor mentioned, and the introduction of sparrows and starlings into North America, have had a disproportionately damaging effect, usually as a result of completely unforeseen circumstances and probably, as Kenneth Gibson noted, exacerbated by climate change. That is why we have to be much more careful about moving species around the world.
Roseanna Cunningham, herself a non-native species, made a passionate speech about the problem of cane toads in Australia and—surprisingly—about amateur gardening. Jamie McGrigor rightly highlighted the importance of taking preventive measures against Gyrodactylus salaris and of keeping Scotland free of the parasite. Escapees from fish and mink farms have inflicted huge damage on our wildlife, our biodiversity and our economy and we must continue our efforts to control the situation in both areas.
Jim Hume mentioned the need to contain signal crayfish, although Jamie McGrigor has told me that they are very good with mayonnaise, so we might be able to eat our way through the problem. John Farquhar Munro was right to draw our attention to the proposal to introduce wolves into Scotland. The measure, which has long been considered, must be resisted, given its potential impact on wildlife.
The Scottish Conservatives welcome the publication of the invasive non-native species framework strategy, which is intended to strike a better balance between reactive management and a more preventive approach. As Peter Peacock made clear, its three-stage hierarchical approach of prevention, early detection and rapid eradication, and long-term control and containment seems to provide a sensible way of dealing with the problem, but the fact remains that it is only a strategy, not a commitment to action. If we are to address the problem seriously, the strategy might well need to be underpinned by education, legislation and budgets. That will be the acid test for Governments in Scotland and the UK, as Ian McKee helpfully noted.
Although controlling non-native invasive species is absolutely desirable, the question is whether it is affordable and who will pay for the new long-term commitment. That is why it is important to recognise that the debate is not an end in itself but only the beginning of a potentially expensive process.
If legislation is to be introduced to protect our most vulnerable environments, it cannot be done in the UK or Scotland in isolation from the rest of Europe. Cleaning up existing problems and future enforcement will come at a cost. I would be interested to know whether the minister has looked into the possibility of introducing legislation and, if so, whether he has costed such a proposal. For that reason, we are attracted to Elaine Murray's amendment and we agree with Liam McArthur's comments on the matter.
Of course, much can be achieved simply by raising awareness of the problem, and today's debate is useful in that context. Perhaps a simple way to reinforce the message and address the issue would be to use existing schemes, such as the Scottish rural development programme, and to invite farmers and landowners not to introduce non-native invasive species on to their land as part of cross-compliance. That would not be a problem for most farmers and landowners.
The establishment of a working group to consider the matter, which the cabinet secretary announced today, is a welcome step forward. The Scottish Conservatives welcome the debate, support the strategy in principle and will support the motion and the Liberal and Labour amendments.
As our uniquely and identifiably Scottish biodiversity is a cornerstone of our natural and cultural heritage that supports and enhances not just our tourism industry but our daily quality of life, any threat to it must be taken seriously. I have to confess that, until recently, I was unaware of the startling fact that, after habitat loss, invasive non-native species are considered the largest threat to biodiversity worldwide. As Scottish Natural Heritage has identified 988 non-native species in Scotland, the issue certainly demands concerted action. As Nanette Milne said, today's debate is a welcome first step in that direction.
Not all non-native species are a threat to biodiversity, although well documented examples such as the Japanese knotweed, which the cabinet secretary and Elaine Murray referred to, the grey squirrel, which Jamie McGrigor mentioned, and the introduction of sparrows and starlings into North America, have had a disproportionately damaging effect, usually as a result of completely unforeseen circumstances and probably, as Kenneth Gibson noted, exacerbated by climate change. That is why we have to be much more careful about moving species around the world.
Roseanna Cunningham, herself a non-native species, made a passionate speech about the problem of cane toads in Australia and—surprisingly—about amateur gardening. Jamie McGrigor rightly highlighted the importance of taking preventive measures against Gyrodactylus salaris and of keeping Scotland free of the parasite. Escapees from fish and mink farms have inflicted huge damage on our wildlife, our biodiversity and our economy and we must continue our efforts to control the situation in both areas.
Jim Hume mentioned the need to contain signal crayfish, although Jamie McGrigor has told me that they are very good with mayonnaise, so we might be able to eat our way through the problem. John Farquhar Munro was right to draw our attention to the proposal to introduce wolves into Scotland. The measure, which has long been considered, must be resisted, given its potential impact on wildlife.
The Scottish Conservatives welcome the publication of the invasive non-native species framework strategy, which is intended to strike a better balance between reactive management and a more preventive approach. As Peter Peacock made clear, its three-stage hierarchical approach of prevention, early detection and rapid eradication, and long-term control and containment seems to provide a sensible way of dealing with the problem, but the fact remains that it is only a strategy, not a commitment to action. If we are to address the problem seriously, the strategy might well need to be underpinned by education, legislation and budgets. That will be the acid test for Governments in Scotland and the UK, as Ian McKee helpfully noted.
Although controlling non-native invasive species is absolutely desirable, the question is whether it is affordable and who will pay for the new long-term commitment. That is why it is important to recognise that the debate is not an end in itself but only the beginning of a potentially expensive process.
If legislation is to be introduced to protect our most vulnerable environments, it cannot be done in the UK or Scotland in isolation from the rest of Europe. Cleaning up existing problems and future enforcement will come at a cost. I would be interested to know whether the minister has looked into the possibility of introducing legislation and, if so, whether he has costed such a proposal. For that reason, we are attracted to Elaine Murray's amendment and we agree with Liam McArthur's comments on the matter.
Of course, much can be achieved simply by raising awareness of the problem, and today's debate is useful in that context. Perhaps a simple way to reinforce the message and address the issue would be to use existing schemes, such as the Scottish rural development programme, and to invite farmers and landowners not to introduce non-native invasive species on to their land as part of cross-compliance. That would not be a problem for most farmers and landowners.
The establishment of a working group to consider the matter, which the cabinet secretary announced today, is a welcome step forward. The Scottish Conservatives welcome the debate, support the strategy in principle and will support the motion and the Liberal and Labour amendments.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2777, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on non-native invasive species.
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (Richard Lochhead):
SNP
I am delighted to open the debate on invasive non-native species and to commend "The Invasive Non-Native Species Framework Strategy for Great Britain". Befor...
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
The cabinet secretary mentioned angling. He must know that many anglers are worried about the possible introduction of the parasite Gyrodactylus salaris. In ...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
Jamie McGrigor raises an important issue. He will be aware that we recently published a strategy on freshwater fisheries in Scotland that addresses that dise...
Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab):
Lab
The reaction of many people to hearing that the Scottish Parliament is spending time debating a strategy on invasive non-native species might well be to ask,...
Jim Hume (South of Scotland) (LD):
LD
The Liberal Democrats welcome the publication of the strategy. Its implementation will be crucial in safeguarding Scotland's most vulnerable native plants an...
Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
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 a...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
We move to the open debate, with speeches of no more than six minutes.
Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP):
SNP
So exciting was the debate so far that I managed to break the podium on the desk over there. I hope that we can all calm down a bit now.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
It will, no doubt, be deducted from your salary.
Roseanna Cunningham:
SNP
Obviously, there is a need for a strategy because the invasion of non-native species is a huge issue that affects a wide range of economic activity in the co...
The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):
SNP
It is not over yet.
Roseanna Cunningham:
SNP
So—there is no final figure. Obviously, research is extremely important as well.As has been mentioned, one of the three strands of the invasive non-native sp...
Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
Non-native species do not normally get an airing in Parliament. Perhaps that is one of the benefits of a by-election taking place in a certain place shortly....
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
I welcome this debate, as I welcomed the publication of the strategy document earlier in the year. I agree with the framework strategy's stark message that t...
Michael Russell:
SNP
Does the member accept that the beaver is not an invasive species and that, indeed, the beaver has been in Scotland for longer even than the McGrigors, who p...
Jamie McGrigor:
Con
Many of my constituents simply do not see the beaver trial as a reintroduction, because they are not convinced that beavers ever lived in Argyll.I draw the m...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
The member's time is up.
Jamie McGrigor:
Con
I will sum up. It is important that people are included in the equation. That point should guide us constantly as we move forward.I do not want to give the i...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Order. The debate is oversubscribed.
Jamie McGrigor:
Con
Thank you.
John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD):
LD
I will make a short declaration in Gaelic, which I will then repeat in English. Bu chaomh leam a ràdh ris an SNP nach do bhàsaich mi fhathast agus gu bheil i...
Michael Russell:
SNP
I counsel the member to be cautious in what he says. It is important to point out that Scottish Natural Heritage, with the community, is investigating what i...
John Farquhar Munro:
LD
I thank the minister for that rebuke, but the evidence has been produced not only in Gairloch but in the north end of Skye and Glenelg. One of my crofting ne...
Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP):
SNP
I speak as a member of probably the world's most corrosive species: our own Homo sapiens, which originated in Africa and entered Scotland only in the past 10...
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
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 encourag...
Ian McKee (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
It is with some caution that I enter this debate, being myself a non-native species that wafted into Scotland some 55 years ago. I hope, however, that I will...
Liam McArthur (Orkney) (LD):
LD
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 ...
John Scott (Ayr) (Con):
Con
The debate has been unexpectedly good. The Scottish Conservatives recognise the importance of controlling the invasive non-native species that threaten biodi...
Elaine Murray:
Lab
At the beginning of debates such as this, I often wonder whether I ought to declare that, many years ago, we took out a family membership of the RSPB. Of cou...