Non-native Invasive Species
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2777, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on non-native invasive species.
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". Before we begin this debate, it is important that we understand invasive non-native species and their impacts. They are animals and plants that have arrived with the assistance of man and which cause damage to our environment, our economy, our health and the way we live.
There are about 1,000 non-native species in Scotland. Most of them are currently benign, but a minority cause serious problems. People tend to be aware of the big-problem species, such as the grey squirrel, Japanese knotweed and American signal crayfish. Unfortunately, those might be the ones that are difficult to eradicate completely. However, it is important that we take whatever steps we can to manage them. More important, we need to raise awareness about the issue, so that we can prevent future problems.
I emphasise the threat that invasive non-native species pose to biodiversity here in Scotland and around the globe. The International Union for Conservation of Nature describes their impacts as
"immense, insidious, and usually irreversible."
In Scotland, some of our most iconic species and habitats are threatened, and the impacts of invasive non-native species on Scottish biodiversity are already far-reaching. They can pass on diseases that are fatal to our native species, they predate on native species, they dilute our native gene pools and they compete for natural resources, such as light, food and water.
Action on invasive non-native species contributes to the achievement of the Scottish Government's greener Scotland objective, as well as having clear links to the Scottish Government's purpose of sustainable economic growth. People might be shocked to learn that it is estimated that invasive non-native species not only damage our natural heritage but cost the Scottish economy at least £200 million a year. The cost might even be much more than that; work is taking place to ascertain the economic cost. If we cast an eye south of the border, the impact can be illustrated by the Olympics site in London, where the cost of eradicating Japanese knotweed alone is estimated to be anywhere between £20 million and £70 million.
The importance of the rural economy to Scotland means that impacts of non-native species on agriculture, forestry and aquaculture can be significant. The Colorado beetle, which would pose a serious risk to our potato crops were it to become established, is one such threat. There are also new concerns, such as the citrus longhorn beetle, which threatens horticulture and forestry. Invasive non-native species can also impact on tourism and land development and exacerbate flooding.
The impacts of introduced species on health should not be forgotten. They include diseases that are carried by non-native species as well as direct impacts, such as the severe burns that are caused by giant hogweed. Invasive non-native species have the potential to affect us all and the way we live: they can reduce our enjoyment of recreational activities such as angling, hiking and gardening, they are a drain on our economies and they can reduce the quality of our lives and threaten our environment. Those issues are important to the people of Scotland and to this Parliament.
As we have gained a better understanding of the problems that are caused by invasive non-native species, the need for a co-ordinated and coherent framework for action has become apparent. The Scottish Government was therefore a key partner in the development of the framework strategy. The strategy provides a clear role for those who are involved in tackling this complex issue, and it ensures co-ordination of policy and action. It has the important and admirable vision that biodiversity, quality of life and economic interests will, when it is fully implemented, be better protected from the adverse impacts of invasive non-native species.
The strategy has three main goals: first, to achieve widespread awareness and understanding of invasive non-native species; secondly, to achieve a stronger sense of shared responsibility across government, key stakeholder organisations, land managers and the general public; and, thirdly, to provide a guiding framework for national, regional and local initiatives. It presents a hierarchy of responses: first, prevention; secondly, detection; and, thirdly, eradication and control. The strategy focuses on the preventive approach, which has the most likelihood of success. It is the least environmentally damaging and the most cost-effective method.
Once a species has become established, full-scale eradication is possible in only a minority of cases, so we must be pragmatic. Some of the invasive non-native species that are with us today are most likely here to stay because they may be impossible or prohibitively expensive to eradicate. For example, in 2003, it was estimated that control of Japanese knotweed across Scotland, England and Wales would cost £1.56 billion.
We can help to prevent introductions in the first place by raising awareness of the risks and the impacts of invasive non-native species. That takes me to another major section of the strategy, on building awareness and understanding. An approach that ignores greater public awareness will not succeed in the long term, so we firmly believe that greater awareness of invasive non-native species is the best defence against future threats. Evidence suggests that, once people understand the issues, they will do what they can to ensure that they become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. That is why we continue to work across the United Kingdom with the other Administrations to monitor the progress of that important work.
An informed public can also assist in detection and monitoring of non-native species, which takes me to my next point and to another key area of the strategy: early detection, monitoring and rapid response. The sooner such species are detected, the sooner action can be taken to reduce any threat. When eradication is possible, we must ensure that any action that is undertaken is cost-effective, proportionate to the threat, as humane as possible and has a minimal impact on native species. We must acknowledge that where species are a threat to Scotland's native species, habitats and economy, they may need to be controlled.
The cabinet secretary mentioned angling. He must know that many anglers are worried about the possible introduction of the parasite Gyrodactylus salaris. In 2007, he lodged an amendment to the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, in which he asked the Government of the day
"to promote at points of entry into the rest of Great Britain measures designed to prevent the entry into Scotland … of clothing or equipment which had been used in any"
affected waters. Does the minister stand by that stated wish? The previous Government did not do it. Will he do it now?
Jamie McGrigor raises an important issue. He will be aware that we recently published a strategy on freshwater fisheries in Scotland that addresses that disease and that issue, and which emphasises the importance of partnership working across the UK. That is why the strategy that we are discussing today is a model of the co-operative spirit and consensus among the range of the partners who are involved. I commend and record appreciation to all those who have been involved in developing the strategy, which lays a foundation and sets a framework for action that will allow us to achieve its vision.
Again, I emphasise that increasing public awareness is essential. If we help to prevent introductions in the first place by raising awareness, we can help to protect our environment and economy from future significant threats.
The strategy is a constructive start and we know that there is still a lot to be done. I am sure that that is recognised throughout the chamber. Today, in order to progress implementation of the strategy, we are asking the Scottish working group to complete a legislative review of invasive non-native species in Scotland, so that we can identify gaps in the legislative framework and establish how we might best resolve the issues.
We are interested in hearing further suggestions today about how we can better deliver the aims of the strategy. I commend to Parliament the motion and the amendments, which we support. We can all work together to protect Scottish biodiversity, our natural heritage and the Scottish economy.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the Invasive Non-Native Species Framework Strategy for Great Britain; notes that this is one of the first comprehensive strategies on invasive non-native species to be developed in Europe; further welcomes the Scottish Government's commitment to work in partnership with governments and organisations across these islands to implement the strategy, and acknowledges that continued efforts are required by all partners to progress the key actions of the strategy.
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, "Why?" People do not overtly recognise the issue but, on further examination, most would have some knowledge and awareness of problematic invasive non-native species, such as grey squirrels, giant hogweed or North American signal crayfish. However, one issue that may not be as obvious is the cost to various agencies of trying to control invasive species, which runs into millions of pounds in the UK, as the cabinet secretary said. On plant health alone, £450,000 is spent in Scotland each year and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spends £10 million throughout the UK. British Waterways spends £1 million every year dealing with problems that are caused by just 12 non-native species that threaten native wildlife in our rivers, including red-eared terrapins, zander, mink, signal crayfish, giant hogweed, floating pennywort and Japanese knotweed. It is estimated that non-native species cost the Scottish economy at least £200 million annually, as Mr Lochhead said.
There are strong economic as well as environmental reasons to develop a strategy for prevention and control of such species. It makes sense for the strategy to be uniform throughout the UK, because the British coast provides a natural barrier to many invasive species. Therefore, the joint strategy that has been signed off by environment ministers from the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government is welcome. Invasive non-native species of flora and fauna are considered to be the second-biggest threat to biodiversity after habitat destruction and are a particular threat to fragile ecosystems such as are on the islands.
Many species that are currently invasive were imported many decades ago and were not invasive at the time. Climate change can alter the viability of a species and that of those that are in competition with it. One challenge is to predict which species have the potential to become invasive and which require monitoring for changes in risk. Prevention and early intervention are better solutions than trying to eradicate or control a species once it has become invasive. In the longer term, it is cheaper and more effective to invest in research and the scientific basis for risk assessment than it is to tackle the problem once it has become established.
The invasive non-native species strategy arose from a comprehensive policy review in 2003 and a consultation that was published at the end of February 2008. The strategy is based on the three-stage approach that was agreed in 2002 by the parties to the "Convention on Biological Diversity". The first stage consists of raising awareness of risks and understanding of impacts to prevent the introduction of potentially invasive species; the second stage is to improve early detection and rapid response to introductions before problems escalate; and the third is to develop longer-term control programmes that are based on sound science. The aims of the strategy are to minimise risk and reduce the negative impact of non-native invasive species by improved co-ordination of the responsibilities of Government and other agencies; to increase public awareness of the problem and encourage behaviour that reduces the risk of the introduction of more such species; and to draw up contingency plans, should a species become invasive for whatever reason.
The implementation of the strategy will be overseen by the Great Britain non-native species programme board, supported by the Non-native Species Secretariat. A UK consultation has also been launched on possible revisions to section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to add non-native species to the list of species that it is an offence to release into the wild. The European Commission is developing proposals for a Europe-wide strategy. The Government's motion is correct to identify that the UK and the devolved legislatures in Scotland and Wales are at the forefront of tackling the issue in Europe.
Many of the species have been introduced through human ignorance. The general public need to be aware of the possible consequences of bringing plants into the country or of releasing unwanted pets into the natural environment. Red-eared terrapins became popular during the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" craze of the 1990s. I had young children, so I remember it well. Many of those terrapins ended up in the wild when their young owners' interest in them waned. American mink escaped or were released from fur farms during the 1930s and are now widespread throughout Scotland and can cause major destruction to seabird colonies. Signal crayfish were introduced for aquaculture in the 1970s, but they spread and now threaten native crayfish through transmission of a fatal disease to which the non-native species is immune. In addition, they burrow into water banks in order to nest, causing damage to the habitat of other creatures, and they compete with other species such as trout and salmon by eating their food and their young.
The most famous non-native invasive species in Scotland is perhaps the grey squirrel, which was introduced in the late 19th century. It damages deciduous trees by stripping their bark and has caused the rapid decline of the red squirrel population through competition for food, and—like the signal crayfish—transmission of a fatal disease to which it is far less susceptible. On a more positive note, there is recent evidence that the reds might be developing some immunity to squirrel pox, which is certainly helpful.
The giant hogweed was—oddly enough—introduced as a decorative plant, but it has invaded river banks and is harmful to humans as well as to other plant species.
The existing measures to exert control over invasive non-native species are contained primarily in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, although other legislation such as the European Union habitats directive and birds directive, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, are also relevant.
RSPB Scotland, in its briefing for this debate, contends that the legislative framework is not coherent, and that very few prosecutions have been brought. The Labour amendment—which I am pleased the Government will agree to—asks ministers to examine the current legislation to assess whether it acts, as has been suggested, in a piecemeal fashion, and whether it could be strengthened.
We will support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which makes it explicit that action is not solely the responsibility of Government and Government agencies. That is implicit in the Government motion and in the strategy, but there is no harm in making it clear in the amended motion that will, I hope, be passed by Parliament this afternoon.
Many local organisations play a vital role in identifying species that are, or are becoming, invasive, and preventing their spread. The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust in London is fighting an on-going battle against the azolla fern, which could choke the wetlands and destroy the habitat of the vast range of wildlife that is dependent on them.
Angling organisations around Loch Ken in Galloway have been at the forefront of the battle to control the signal crayfish. Controlling and—more importantly—preventing the spread of non-native invasive species is everybody's responsibility.
I move amendment S3M-2777.2, to insert at end:
"and asks the Scottish Government to review existing legislation and report back to the Parliament on whether it considers that current legislation requires to be strengthened to ensure that the issue of non-native species is addressed more effectively."
The Liberal Democrats welcome the publication of the strategy. Its implementation will be crucial in safeguarding Scotland's most vulnerable native plants and animals and will, in the long term, help to protect ecosystems. Scotland is world-renowned for its flora and fauna, and we all have a responsibility to protect those jewels in the crown of our environment. Indeed, the UK has an obligation to deal with invasives as part of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Many true alien species may now be regarded as native, such as the rabbit, which was introduced by the Normans, and the sycamore, which was introduced by the Celts, but no one is proposing eliminating those from our countryside. Harmful invasive species, however, can alter the structure of ecosystems through repressing or excluding native species, either by directly out-competing them—as is the case with grey and red squirrels—or by indirectly changing the way in which nutrients are cycled through the system. The danger is that entire ecosystems become permanently skewed.
It is important, therefore, that we deal with the problem timeously rather than wait for it to become unmanageable and expensive. That approach is endorsed by the strategy, which views prevention as a key to tackling the problem of invasive species. The strategy acknowledges the good work that has been achieved through the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, but it also identifies the need for a more cohesive and comprehensive policy approach. The strategy's intention is to build on existing legislation, but any legislation must fast-track the existing system. The point of my amendment, which I will come to, is to address that.
I mention at this point the work of Tweed Forum, which deals with the particular problems of giant hogweed, Himalayan balsam—or touch-me-not, as it is commonly known—and Japanese knotweed in the Tweed catchment. Those plants are all, as Elaine Murray pointed out, garden introductions.
The Tweed invasives project has been successful but, like other projects, it now needs resources to complete the job and, as the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment mentioned, to save money in the medium and the long term. The project's key to success is, of course, the local knowledge within the forum, but the difficulty is the time it takes to gain licences through agencies so that non-native species can be tackled before they become invasive.
The same goes for the American signal crayfish, which has now reached endemic proportions in the south of Scotland—in Loch Ken in particular, and in the Tweed. It is being tackled by the Tweed Foundation and the Galloway Fisheries Trust: fishing in those areas brings in large incomes and the amphibious crayfish is a serious threat to the economy of Scotland. Resources are needed to tackle that alien now because not only is it a faster breeder than our native crayfish, it is a more ferocious eater of salmon par and trout alevins, which, I inform the cabinet secretary, are small fry.
The point of my amendment is that local groups need to take the lead by having responsibility and authority for an agreed catchment area that potentially takes in more than one local authority area and local groups with an environmental focus.Tweed Forum treated the Tweed as a whole catchment because the seeds and rhizomes of the giant hogweed and knotweed were shown to travel through watercourses. Treating the whole river system as one catchment is rather more effective than simply stopping at any borders. Tweed Forum worked with Northumberland County Council, for example, because co-operation is key.
The biosecurity planning project that is under way again is welcome. It will build on the existing knowledge base to realise a biosecurity plan template and plans, rapid response protocols and databases, together with awareness raising and training. That is good planning, but what is needed now is for the Scottish Government to take a lead in the UK to deal proactively with the problem of invasives. Crucially, it has been repeated to me that the Scottish Government also needs to agree that control and eradication measures can be put in place when invasive species are first detected and not just when they are shown to be damaging, which can be years later, often too late and—by then—too expensive to tackle.
Localised measures do not commit the Scottish Government to limitless expenditure on invasives, but could be taken by empowering local groups with professional staff, such as the Tweed Foundation, Tweed Forum, the Galloway Fisheries Trust and the Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland, so that they can take local action to meet local problems as they identify them through local plans on the ground and in the water.
Quick access to funding is an issue. If they have resources, local bodies can control non-native species early on, not just when they are established as an invasives problem. Dealing with any problem early on will keep costs down. Best value is good government.
I have carped on a wee bit about fish today, but I believe that we have the knowledge and means in Scotland to deal with the problem of non-native invasives in a practical way. I have outlined briefly in my speech the importance of local action plans and quick responses. Many groups and organisations are involved, so communication will be paramount in setting up local initiatives to tackle invasive species now. I hope that the minister and cabinet secretary will consider speeding up the licensing process to tackle non-native species.
I am glad that the Government and Labour support my amendment. We will support the Labour amendment, although ours goes a little further and focuses on the need for fast local action.
I move amendment S3M-2777.1, to insert at end:
"recognises that prevention and early intervention are vital in protecting native species, habitats and ecosystems, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to work with local organisations with a remit for the protection of Scotland's natural environment to find ways to expedite the timeous implementation of measures at a local level and to report back to the Parliament with the findings."
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.
We move to the open debate, with speeches of no more than six minutes.
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.
It will, no doubt, be deducted from your salary.
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 country—agriculture, forestry, horticulture, fisheries and, of course, our pets.
Such species can contribute to habitat loss and biodiversity changes and can destroy fragile ecosystems in many areas including the islands, which are mini-areas of the country that may need special protection. The control or eradication of non-native species is extremely difficult and costly, so prevention is by far the best way forward.
I am indebted to the RSPB Scotland briefing for the information that one in 10 priority native species is threatened by the rising number of non-native species. The briefing also highlights the fact that non-native species have caused more bird extinctions since the 1800s than any other single factor. Obviously, the issue has a massive impact.
Because of climate change, we will probably see more such problems. I suspect that it will be impossible to deal with the problem completely, as we cannot roll back climate change, although we are trying to stop it in its tracks. However, climate change is already beginning to take effect.
As Elaine Murray mentioned, there are serious economic costs, with several billions of pounds already being spent annually. I understand that Japanese knotweed has to be eradicated from land that is being used for the 2012 London Olympics infrastructure. Just in passing, I wonder whether anyone ever put a final figure on the great North Uist hedgehog hunt—
It is not over yet.
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 species framework strategy is prevention, which is obviously the best way forward. Given that a significant number of the biggest pests appear to emanate from across the Atlantic—American mink, American grey squirrels and American signal crayfish—I am moved to repeat the accusations that were made against American GIs during the war, who were said to be oversexed, overpaid and over here. One might add that they are—as has been discovered in Iraq—darned difficult to get rid of once they are over here. We are finding that that is true of these species.
Clearly, early detection and rapid eradication are important where it has not been possible to prevent non-natives species from arriving. The best way of dealing with them is to get at them early. Where that is not possible, we need to look at long-term control and containment.
However, I want to concentrate on building awareness and understanding, which is key to the whole issue. There is a significant debate to be had about how to achieve that. I do not believe that we need a survey to determine baseline awareness of the issue, as has been proposed. In my view, public awareness beyond the red versus grey argument is probably close to zero, even among the Greens. Although, unfortunately, neither of our Green MSPs is present in the chamber today, Patrick Harvie will not mind my saying that he has admitted to me that he knows absolutely nothing about Himalayan balsam.
There are groups of people who could quickly be conscripted into the defending army, if that is how we want to view ourselves. Gardeners, walkers, farmers and freshwater fishermen are captive audiences both as receivers of information and as sources of intelligence. We need only consider the RSPB's annual garden birds survey to see how ordinary people can be mobilised to provide astonishingly useful information. All those groups read specialist press, most of which would likely be only too happy to help.
Once upon a time, I used to read Cosmopolitan. Sadly, the passing of the years means that I also now read magazines such as Amateur Gardening, which this week includes two items that relate directly to today's debate. The first is a piece headed "Could bug halt superweed menace?" The piece is about Japanese knotweed, which is described as
"a menace that thrives in poor soils, can crack concrete and strangles plants that lie in its path."
In the light of the proposal to release a bug to kill the Japanese knotweed, I would like to hear the minister's views on the use of other imported non-native species in that fashion. As the Australians found with the cane toad, that may not always be the best way forward. The second item is about how gardeners can help to eradicate the destructive South American primrose from blocking British waterways. There is a vast resource out there of potential information and intelligence gathering and assistance. We could utilise and mobilise those routes of information gathering and information dissemination, because such people are on our side.
If either the cabinet secretary or the minister wants to know where Himalayan balsam can be found in Perthshire, any walker in Perthshire would be able to tell them, and they would get a map of it all very quickly indeed. I commend that approach to the problem: using it will be vital.
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.
I was interested to see that, within the past couple of weeks, the BBC ran a special item on this subject in its news bulletins for a week. That shows the issue's importance, even if it is not on the radar of most Scots.
We must distinguish between non-native species—Scottish Natural Heritage reports almost 1,000 terrestrial and freshwater species and a further 24 marine species—and non-native species that are invasive and cause damage to natural habitats and native species. SNH estimates that about 76 non-native species are clearly causing damage. We should be concerned about only those species.
It is sometimes difficult to imagine that some of the species are a problem. I think of the beautiful rhododendron displays that we get throughout Scotland in mid to late spring, and seeing them as I drive down the Great Glen from Inverness to Fort William. On the west coast, in Ardnamurchan and Argyll, we can see their glorious colours, and they are used on picture postcards of Scotland. However, they are certainly not a native species and they are damaging, because where rhododendrons grow, little else does. That is a good illustration of one of the negative effects of non-native invasive species on biodiversity, to which others have referred. Although the problem is widespread, there is a particular problem for sites of special scientific interest, which can be threatened.
Members have referred to the grey squirrel and its effect on our very delicate and beautiful red squirrel. We had a debate on that subject the other evening, so I will not repeat all that was said, but it is a good example of a non-native invasive species threatening one of our species by forcing it out of its environment. There are many other examples, as members have mentioned. Giant hogweed is taking over many of our river banks and presenting a danger to young people, as well as pushing out other species. Mink are having an effect on water voles, and Japanese knotweed is taking over in many places, not just in Scotland but in other nations as well, as I saw during my visits this summer.
Particular parts of the country, especially our islands, have distinct ecosystems and can be affected disproportionately by mainland species reaching them. Roseanna Cunningham mentioned the hedgehogs in the Uists and the cost of eradicating them to stop them having a profound effect on ground-nesting birds. Not only have the hedgehogs had an effect on biodiversity, they have had an economic effect, because a lot of tourists go to the Uists to see those birds.
The economic effects can be important. I think of the slipper limpet—as I often do, Presiding Officer—making its way up the west coast and getting closer to our commercial mussel farms, which could be severely affected by the limpet's advance. I think of the New Zealand flatworm, which threatened our earthworm in the past, and what it could do to the productivity of our soils. Others have alluded to the dangers of the Norwegian freshwater parasite getting into Scottish rivers and affecting our salmon population, which would not only affect biodiversity but have a huge economic impact, particularly in my part of the world. I think of the Harris superquarry and the many arguments that were levelled against it, such as the effect of taking aggregate across the world then bringing back ballast water from other parts of the world and releasing it into our waters.
That takes me to my third point, to which Nanette Milne has referred. World trade, globalisation and the greater ease of travel increases the risk of importing invasive species. We need to be more vigilant. Compared with other countries, I wonder whether we are as vigilant. Three years ago, I visited Australia. As I went through customs, I had my shoes taken from me and disinfected, because I admitted that I lived in the countryside and the staff, I presume, wanted to ensure that no parasites got in on the bottom of my shoes. Similarly, in the United States of America this year, I was stopped at customs because I was carrying an apple, and there was concern about a particular kind of fruit fly. I confess that it occurred to me that the fruit fly could have flown out of the building that I was in. Nevertheless, those are examples of countries being vigilant.
Climate change is also a threat. As the air and the seas get warmer, the opportunities for species to survive further north increase. Equally, because of changing temperatures, some of our species are moving further up our mountains and hillsides, which changes those habitats.
We are discussing important issues, which is why the framework strategy is in place at the GB level. The strategy needs to be multipronged, and involve prevention, surveillance, detection and monitoring, rapid response, early intervention, eradication and control, more research, greater public awareness and a partnership approach.
If the Government comes forward with sensible measures—which it has indicated it will do—we will support it, because these are important issues.
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 the impact of non-native invasive species ranks second only to habitat loss and destruction as a threat to the world's ecosystems, and is one of the major factors causing biodiversity loss.
The impact of non-native species in Scotland, in particular in my region of the Highlands and Islands, is already significant in a number of areas. I was pleased to speak in Murdo Fraser's recent debate on protecting Scotland's red squirrel from its invasive American grey cousin, and I pay tribute to Murdo Fraser for his work on that issue.
Signal crayfish are another obvious example of a misguided importation. As someone who is massively aware of the importance of salmon fishing to the economy of his region and as a keen fisherman, I was interested in and encouraged by the recent media coverage of efforts to keep the pernicious Gyrodactylus salaris parasite from entering the United Kingdom. I agree with the Spey fishery board that the economic and ecological consequences of Gyrodactylus salaris entering the country would be catastrophic. We must guard our GS-free status, which means that everyone must know that, if they come back from a fishing trip in Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain or Sweden, they must disinfect their fishing gear to ensure that the highly contagious parasite is destroyed. I hope that the cabinet secretary will do what he called on the then Government to do in an amendment to the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill in 2007.
I stress that large escapes of farmed rainbow trout or salmon into a wild fishery environment are every bit as bad as the introduction of a non-native species, and I hope that the minister has taken that on board as well.
It would be remiss of me not to use this opportunity to raise my constituents' concerns about the reintroduction of species that have certainly not been native to Scotland in recent times and which many argue could be invasive or, at the very least, have a significant impact on biodiversity. Those species are, the minister will be pleased to hear, the European beaver and the sea eagle. From the significant amount of correspondence that we have both received, Mr Russell will be aware of my interest in those issues on behalf of my constituents. I know that the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards recently wrote to the minister outlining its opposition to the reintroduction project, pointing out the complete lack of any objective appraisal or scientific studies of the impact of beavers on salmon and sea trout populations.
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 probably do equal damage to the salmon and trout population?
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 minister's attention to the escape of swamp beavers in East Anglia in the 1940s. The few that escaped had become 200,000 by the late 1950s and, due to the huge damage that they did to drainage and irrigation systems, a costly eradication scheme was undertaken, which was completed only in 1989. At least beavers do not predate on animals or fish, unlike mink, whose numbers have again multiplied in Scotland, and which cause widespread death and destruction to other animals and fish.
On sea eagles, I am grateful to Michael Russell for acknowledging the sheer desperation of crofters in the Gairloch and elsewhere in Ross-shire, who have had many lambs killed. I met many of those crofters recently, at a packed public meeting in Poolewe. Although SNH will study the diet of the Gairloch sea eagles next year, can the minister guarantee that the management scheme options that are available in other areas will be made available to my constituents in Ross-shire without delay? My crofting constituents in Ross-shire should not be discriminated against, as is happening at the moment. Will the minister also take into account the RSPB's admission that sea eagles predate heavily on sea birds, especially fulmars, which are a highly regarded species? I cannot believe that the minister wants to treat the fulmar purely as a larder species for predators. Today, the RSPB voiced concerns about the fall in numbers of Arctic terns, guillemots and skuas. What is the RSPB doing to protect those birds, and the fulmars, from sea eagle predation?
Sea eagles are cousins of the vultures that used to wheel over burned-out wagon trains in the Arizona desert. They are magnificent birds, but they are also magnificent killers. Crofters and farmers can shoot a dog or fox that kills their lambs, but they can hardly say boo to a sea eagle. The birds may be encouraging tourism in Mull, but they are not encouraging many people in Wester Ross. What will the minister do about that? When will he do something about it?
Today's debate is important. I welcome the Scottish Government's recognition that close co-operation on major environmental issues is required between governmental and other organisations at national level. However, close co-operation between Government and people whose livelihoods may be affected by the introduction of non-native species is also required.
The member's time is up.
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 impression of being against all reintroduction—
Order. The debate is oversubscribed.
Thank you.
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 iad ro thràth ga mo thiodhlacadh. I am paraphrasing the great quote from Mark Twain that
"Reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated."
I imagine that that is of little interest to the chamber, but I am sure that it is understood on the Government benches.
Like other members, I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the problem of non-native invasive species. Although I am aware that Skye has an increasing problem with Japanese knotweed, about which we have heard a great deal this afternoon, the real reason for my interest in the debate is that I wish to speak on behalf of the crofters of Wester Ross and other areas on the west coast—Jamie McGrigor mentioned the people up in Poolewe. Crofters in Wester Ross have suffered substantial financial losses as a result of the introduction of the white-tailed eagle from Norway.
It may be of interest to members that the last Scottish sea eagles were shot on Skye during the First World War. They were eradicated because they had become a menace to crofters, whose sheep and food were in short supply at the time. In my view, when a species has died out in an area, it has died out for good. The example of the sea eagle is one of caution for those members who are seeking to introduce the wolf, the lynx and the bear to remote parts of Scotland. Introducing species that are related to those that were once native to the British isles is a gross mistake.
No crofter near Gairloch would deny that the introduced—or reintroduced, as people say—eagles are invasive. Similar problems have been experienced with the introduction of the goshawk. According to the scientists who study birds, it is the same species as, or a similar one to, the extinct British goshawk. However, it is of an entirely different temperament and is far more aggressive. I do not know why that should be, but the experts will probably have a reason for it.
What concerns me about the introduction of those top predators—and there are many of them—is the effect that they have on the food chain beneath them. Although the RSPB seems concerned about the introduced sea eagle, goshawk and capercaille, to mention only a few, it seems to show little concern for small hedgerow birds and other wildlife.
I make it clear that I do not blame the eagles in any way—they are only doing what comes naturally—I blame and take issue with the misguided individuals who introduced them in the first place. I do not deny that the introduction of the white-tailed eagle from Norway has benefited tourism in some small way, but it is really starting to interfere with crofters' livelihoods.
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 is taking place. We have made commitments to find out exactly what the situation is and to ensure that we do things to help the crofters in Gairloch—that is where the problem is—with the difficulty. Unfortunately, the tenor of the member's remarks veers towards suggesting that crofters themselves might take other actions and implying that the eagles should not be there. That is a dangerous thing to start to say, and I remind him of the law on birds of prey.
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 neighbours in that village lost nearly 200 lambs this year—many, he suggests, to white-tailed eagles.
I appeal to the Scottish Government and its agencies to recognise the increasing eagle problem now. The standard SNH and RSPB line that crofters are exaggerating their losses is angering agricultural communities. How much more evidence do they require? The Government urgently needs to come up with a scheme to compensate farmers and crofters for their losses before they are forced to take action to protect their stock.
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 10,000 years or so, after the ice finally melted. Indeed, if we go back far enough, every species currently in Scotland is invasive, so we are considering a matter of degree.
I found the two previous speeches somewhat depressing. I do not agree with John Farquhar Munro that once man has exterminated a species it should not be reintroduced. There should be a balance between humanity and the natural world, and we should discuss the basis of that balance rather than allow one species to eliminate another and make the world a poorer place.
We have heard about Japanese knotweed, which was introduced as an ornamental plant only to spread triffid-like across the land. It is a particularly nasty invader, which can reproduce from a sliver the size of a thumbnail. It has been suggested that the sap-sucking psyllid leaf louse—the bête noir of Japanese knotweed—be imported to deal with this pest, saving a fortune in potentially damaging weedkiller. If the Greens had bothered to show up for the debate, I am sure they would have told us how environmentally sensitive that would be. However, I believe that we should adopt a precautionary approach when we consider introducing yet more species into our environment.
After peeking at my speech, my colleague Roseanna Cunningham plagiarised something that I was about to say about cane toads, but I will deal with the topic in more depth. Cane toads were introduced into many regions of the Pacific and Caribbean as a method of agricultural pest control. Their failure to eliminate the sugar cane grub in Australia was notable. From a mere six pairs, their numbers multiplied to some 200 million. When indigenous predators and predators that had been introduced by Europeans in the previous two centuries, such as dogs and foxes, attacked the cane toads, they were killed by the toad's toxins. Ultimately, insecticides had to be used to control the grub, so although it might seem more environmentally sensitive to introduce one species to eliminate another, I caution that it can create greater difficulties and result, eventually, in weed killers having to be used.
In my constituency, we have the mink, which is a semi-aquatic, carnivorous mammal. As Jamie McGrigor mentioned, mink were introduced for their fur, but have since escaped and caused devastation on Scotland's western seaboard. Action should be taken to further reduce the numbers of that non-native species; if possible, it should be eradicated. Mink prey on fish and other aquatic life, as well as small mammals, especially rabbits. Rabbits were introduced into this country only in historic times, during the Norman conquest of England, after which they migrated north.
The framework that we are discussing is important, because there needs to be increased awareness and understanding of the risks and adverse effects that are associated with non-native invasive species. We must be more vigilant. There also needs to be a greater sense of shared responsibility on the part of Governments.
In Scotland, there are 988 non-native species. The climate has reduced the number of such species here relative to the figure south of the border, where there are 2,271, but climate change might make Scotland more attractive, with the result that more non-native species move north, so continued vigilance is necessary. Butterflies, marine molluscs, migratory birds and plants are likely to be affected by climate change and impacted on by invasive species.
The introduction of non-native invasive species causes great problems in our aquatic ecosystems, as Mr Hume described in great detail. It is not just a question of dealing with the sexier examples, such as mink; we need to deal with less distinctive species.
The guiding principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity emphasise that preventive measures are better than cure. It is important that we detect non-native species early. I think that it was Peter Peacock who talked about America being careful about non-native apples. When I went to Australia, such was the fanaticism of the efforts to prevent yet more species from entering the country that I felt that if I had had explosives or heroin I would have been allowed to walk through customs, whereas if I had had a golden delicious I would immediately have been arrested and thrown to the ground. That shows how sensitive that country is to something that has the potential to devastate its environment and economy. We should be equally vigilant here.
Of course, there must be sufficient operational capacity and resources for the Scottish Government, working in partnership with the UK and other devolved Administrations, to ensure that we can identify invasive species and rationally assess the risk that they pose. Some of those species might be benign, but we must take a long-term view. A wide range of organisations are carrying out migration control work, which I trust will continue for the benefit of all.
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.
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 be judged to fulfil the definition, in the introduction to the framework strategy of an invasive species that is benign—and perhaps even one that contributes to our natural heritage. That is for others to judge; perhaps they have already done so.
If all non-native species had been banned from these shores in the past, we would not now be going home to a fish supper or eating potato crisps. The potato was brought back to the British isles by Sir Walter Raleigh in the 16th century. True, he also introduced us to tobacco, but fortunately that deadly import cannot be grown in this country.
The truth is that, for every benign import, there are a few that can cause incalculable harm to our countryside, our pockets, and even our way of life. Many have already been mentioned. I note in passing that all the specimens of Japanese knotweed in this country are female, but I make no comment further than that. Although at first a seemingly attractive newcomer to the garden, it spreads relentlessly and is extremely difficult to eradicate. In Scotland, we have so far been spared colonial sea squirt, but leathery sea squirt from Korea threatens our shores. On land, the Hottentot fig threatens some of our most sensitive coastal areas.
As Peter Peacock has said, in some areas of the Highlands such as the Ardnamurchan peninsula, we are all too familiar with the onward march of the non-native rhododendron. Even the Canada goose is an unwelcome invader to our country, flattening fields and squashing the nests of other birds—although, in true British fashion, we bemoan its presence while giving it, its nests and its eggs legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
It is for those reasons that I welcome the announcement of the framework strategy. A lead co-ordinating organisation—mandated to assess risk, monitor events, educate and inform—can only be for the good.
Yet will it be enough? Past experience of listening to speeches in this chamber has warned me against resorting to nursery stories, but I cannot help but think of the fable of the mice who decided that the best way to guard against the cat catching them unawares would be to tie a bell around its neck. This seemed a good idea at the time, but soon it dawned on the mice that the major problem would be tying on the bell in the first place. Similarly, although I support all the good intentions in the framework document, they may be difficult to put into practice.
In the past, species were often imported by well-intentioned world travellers, but few out of our total population were wealthy enough to fall into that category and so the risks were, to a degree, limited. However, international travel is commonplace today, with cheap flights bringing most areas of the world within reach of large sections of the population. The speed of travel means that seeds, for example, can be imported into this country on shoes or clothes without the bearer even being aware of the fact.
Another factor is ignorance of the risks attached to importing non-native species or cheerfully helping them to spread. I recall with embarrassment being pleased at the first specimen of Japanese knotweed that appeared in my garden. I was totally unaware of the dangers that it presented and I rather admired its appearance. If we are to combat successfully the threat presented by some non-native species, we need a massive public education programme. At present, the public is, as I was, sadly underinformed. A campaign needs to be aimed at the population at large and not just, as illustrated in the document, at people coming home from foreign holidays. It is not unknown for keen gardeners to take cuttings from exotic plants when on holiday and to pack them into hold baggage so that the cuttings are not even available for discarding at the airport terminal on arrival back in UK, even if the gardeners are impressed by publicity material at that point. Furthermore, good intentions can soon evaporate when cases are unpacked.
What we need is a massive campaign, with posters everywhere, of the most dangerous visitors or potential visitors to our shores, so that the traveller knows in advance of the risks and can guard against them. Schools should be informed in a similar way.
I remember, as a child, seeing photographs of the Colorado beetle everywhere, with captions pointing out how anyone who saw such a beetle should immediately report its presence to the authorities. I had no idea what danger it presented, but I am certain that, had I ever seen such a creature, I would have known exactly what to do. I see very few such warnings about any invasive non-native species today, and I argue that an intensive campaign is needed.
I support the composite motion and wish it every success.
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.
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.
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 course, that involved our giving it money—not the other way round—and it does not mean that I necessarily adhere to all its points of view.
The debate started out generally consensual, and it was interesting and informative throughout, but Jamie McGrigor managed to inject a note of discord with his dissent on the reintroduction of beavers and sea eagles. I was careful how I pronounced "sea eagles", because seagulls are an entirely different matter. Although they are a native species, they can be pretty invasive, as people in Dumfries and other areas know. I was a little confused by Jamie McGrigor's argument about the relationship between sea eagles and vultures, because vultures are not predators but scavengers, despite the fact that they are seen wheeling over the remains of various animals and indeed people.
Is the member saying that the white-tailed sea eagle is not related to the vulture?
I am not sure whether the sea eagle is related to the vulture, but vultures are not predators and the issue, to which John Farquhar Munro also referred, is predation. There is serious concern about that among some crofters and I am glad to hear that SNH and others are looking into it. I do not think that we should pre-empt the findings of those investigations.
I am sorry that Kenny Gibson is not in the chamber at the moment because, on this occasion, I am in the unusual position of agreeing with him. The fact that human beings eradicated a species at some time should not militate against its reintroduction. I cite the example of the reintroduction of red kites, first in the Highlands and now in Dumfries and Galloway. Sadly, those beautiful birds are still sometimes the victims of ill-informed individuals who do not understand the difference between predators and scavengers. Red kites, like vultures, are scavengers, although they are hawks. However, this is not a debate about wildlife crime, so I shall return to the topic.
Roseanna Cunningham and Peter Peacock discussed fragile island environments that can be threatened by native species migrating from the mainland. Hedgehogs, which, as we know, were introduced by humans to the island of Uist, caused a dramatic reduction in wading bird colonies by predating their eggs. They also managed to cause a dramatic public outcry when the original method of controlling their numbers—by cull—was suggested.
Rhoda Grant mentioned rats on St Kilda. Liam McArthur referred to the rats that arrived on the island of Canna in the 1900s. For a long time, the rat population was controlled by harsh winters, but climate change in the form of recent mild winters brought about a population explosion and it was some time before the island was declared rat free, earlier this year. I suspect that there was less of a public outcry about the fate of the poor old rats than there was about the hedgehogs—cute animals, whether they are invaders or victims, always seem to get more public sympathy than less attractive animals.
Much reference has been made to signal crayfish. As Jim Hume said, as it is amphibious, it is unfortunately able to travel over land. The species first appeared in the catchment of the River Dee in Kirkcudbrightshire in 1995, but it has travelled as far north as Inverness-shire. A similar non-native species, the Chinese mitten crab, is also threatening the UK. It began to increase in number in the 1980s and it is possibly even more voracious and dangerous to the environment than the signal crayfish. In its native China, it has been shown to be capable of migrating up to 1,500km and it is said to be prepared to eat anything in its path. There has been recent speculation about what will happen when those two species meet—they will be fairly dangerous to the environment and possibly to each other.
Plants form a fairly large part of the invasive non-native species problem. The horticulture code was launched in 2005 to provide voluntary guidance to prevent the spread into the natural environment of invasive garden species. Ian McKee and Peter Peacock referred to displays of rhododendron. It is a beautiful plant in the garden, but it has become a pest in many woodlands. Although it looks pretty in the spring, it overtakes and forces out native woodland species.
Himalayan balsam—I know what it looks like but I do not know how to pronounce it—is also an attractive species, but examination of the banks of the River Nith demonstrates how invasive it is. I recently took part in a clean-up of the River Nith. The only thing that shocked me more than the quantity of that plant on the riverbank was the quantity of empty alcohol containers and plastic bags.
Competition for the same habitat is not the only problem; interbreeding can also threaten diversity. The wild hyacinth, for example, while still widespread, is under increasing threat from hybridisation with garden varieties such as the Spanish bluebell and the hybrid bluebell. I think that it is the latter that has taken hold in my garden—I can confirm that it is invasive and difficult to control.
Without doubt, prevention is better than cure. As other members have said, non-native species have been introduced into these islands over the centuries. Not all of them are invasive and the more invasive ones have tended to be introduced more recently. The ancient introductions have become integrated into the environment.
Education and personal responsibility are important, in addition to Government action, but we must ensure that the legislative framework is coherent and underpins action by Government or individuals. That is why we have lodged our amendment. I am pleased that the Government and the other parties in the chamber have agreed to accept it.
The debate has been positive and constructive, but before I get into the substance of it I will deal with what might be called the two invasive contributions, which were somewhat different from the rest.
Jamie McGrigor strayed off the subject of the debate and stayed off it. By contrast, John Farquhar Munro never got on to the subject of the debate. Let me make it clear that the issue that we are talking about is clearly defined in the strategy and in the motion. Sea eagles are not an invasive species. Let me also make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt in the reporting of the issue, that the Government is concerned and has been active. SNH is also active. Yesterday, I had another discussion with Andrew Thin, the chair of SNH, about the issue. We are determined to help the affected crofters. We know that there is a problem, but a constructive rather than a destructive approach will be taken. I hope that that is understood by everyone involved.
The debate has been positive and well informed, just as the strategy that we are dealing with is positive and well informed. I am pleased to accept both amendments, but with two slight caveats. First, on the Labour amendment, legislation is not the sole answer to the problem. Indeed, legislation tends to be at the extreme end of the problem, because very few people deliberately take invasive species in and deliberately mean to do damage. There are an awful lot of accidental actions in this regard—ballast waters, for example, which Rhoda Grant referred to. A lot of problems are caused by material coming in that we have difficulty stopping because of global trade. Equally, some of the problems that we face are because, over several centuries, people have brought in plants—ornamental plants in particular—that they thought were well adapted to the area. They did not know that they were too well adapted. Of course we will continue to consider legislation. We are happy to accept Labour's amendment—we are looking at the matter seriously—but legislation is not the sole solution.
Local action, of which we have seen good examples, is required. Mr Hume referred to the Tweed invasives project, under which an immensely impressive series of actions are being taken by a range of stakeholders who know that their livelihoods and their area are being badly affected. A national overview is needed, although we must recognise that the problem varies from place to place. National overviews allow us to link things together.
Roseanna Cunningham made the wise point that there is a particular problem on islands. Hedgehogs and mink have been referred to. Each area has its own difficulties with invasive species. We need to ensure that there is local action and a national strategy. I am happy to accept both amendments with those observations.
There are, of course, differences north and south of the border. We have willingly signed up to the strategy, which we are implementing, but it is important to recognise that the strategy document is not just a discussion document; there is a framework in it that we have signed up to, which is already in place. It is devoted to action. That said, there are climate differences north and south of the border, and differences in the effects of climate change, in habitats and in natural environments. We have a set of common tools by which we can address problems, but we will of course address them piece by piece, paying attention to particular things that we can do in Scotland.
I will conclude by referring to some of the things that we are doing here. [Interruption.]
Order. One moment, minister. Far too many conversations that have nothing at all to do with the debate are taking place in the chamber.
Work is progressing under SNH's species action framework. As members know, that framework provides a list of species, action on which over the next five years could make a difference to biodiversity. The wider context of the debate is Scotland's biodiversity and how we wish to preserve and develop it. Six non-native species are included in SNH's species action framework, which not only encourages species that we want to see in Scotland, but addresses the problems that are created by non-native species. Those non-native species are the American mink, the grey squirrel, the North American signal crayfish—the Presiding Officer knows about that subject—Rhododendron ponticum, the New Zealand pygymy weed and wirewood. We will focus on all those species over the next five years to ensure that we reduce their impact. It is important to note—as Richard Lochhead said at the beginning of the debate—that we are not, alas, talking about total eradication, because we have already reached the stage at which reintroductions have been so widespread and severe that we can talk only about control.
Rosanna Cunningham raised the interesting issue of biocides and the possibility of going for total eliminations by means of some sort of magic bullet. That has been talked about for signal crayfish and Himalayan balsam. She asked for the Government's reaction to that proposal. We are cautious. We know from elsewhere that the use of biocides can be remarkably successful, but there can also be unintended consequences. Cane toads have been mentioned twice in the debate. [Interruption.] I am sure that those who have just arrived in the chamber are so familiar with the cane toad issue that they do not need to know any more about it. The case of cane toads provides an example of introducing one species and producing terrible results for other species.
Scotland is particularly vulnerable to invasive species: it has a long coastline and many islands. Many translocated species have been brought from elsewhere. We will remain exceptionally vigilant. We will continue to do the work that we can do through SNH, our biodiversity strategy and, of course, our national objectives, which include a number of biodiversity objectives. We will also work closely with the other Administrations in these islands and in the European context. I draw the debate to a close on that thought. The problem is not only a Scottish, a UK or a European problem. In an era of globalisation and climate change, the whole world is changing. We must fight strongly to maintain—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I am fighting strongly to hear myself, Presiding Officer.
I agree. I have already asked for quiet in the chamber. I should not have to ask for it twice.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. If I cannot hear myself, it is clear that something is wrong.
We must fight strongly to ensure that we maintain the Scottish environment with climate change. There is an alternative. We could cease to worry about the topic, throw the strategy document away and say that it does not matter to us. That would mean that we would lose Scotland's environment as we know it and as we must hand it on to our children.