Chamber and committees

I will speak to amendment 54 and the three other amendments in my name in the group.

I again put on record my thanks to a number of organisations, in particular the RSPB, the RSE and Scottish Environment Link, for their support in drafting my amendments. I also thank the Scottish Parliament’s legislation team again for all their help.

Amendments 54, 55 and 56 should be read and considered in combination with one another, as they all seek to address and shine a light on the extent of environmental damage that is caused by invasive non-native species.

Amendment 54 directly addresses the exemption of conifers from the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 by ministerial order.

Amendment 55 seeks to address the exemption for the non-native red-legged partridge. I am aware that Lorna Slater has lodged a similar amendment, which I look forward to hearing the detail of. I am of course sympathetic to its principles.

The Sitka spruce and the red-legged partridge are exempt for the simple reason that they deliver commercial profit to private shareholders. In essence, amendments 54 and 55 seek to rectify the damage caused by putting our natural environment up for sale. Amendment 56 would ensure that our natural environment can never be for sale.

Amendment 12 follows that principle, in that it creates a statutory requirement for proper management of invasive non-native species through the polluter pays principle. I believe that the public support the principle that groups that are responsible for environmental damage due to the introduction of invasive non-native species should bear responsibility for the costs of eradication. That should not only relate to intentional pollution; it should also apply to accidental pollution, such as that from the seed rain of Sitka spruce. When vast swathes of Scotland’s environment are being degraded in the name of commercial profit, it is only right that the financial cost of the conservation and restoration required as a result of that ecological vandalism be the responsibility of the commercial profiteers. If the status quo remains, the public pay not only once, through subsidising already profitable private business, but twice, as the public must also pay for the clean-up of environmental degradation resulting from elements of the businesses concerned, as is the case with the clean-up of Sitka spruce seed rain on peatland.

I did not have the opportunity to discuss the drafting of my amendments with the cabinet secretary in advance of lodging them, and I recognise that it is unlikely that she will recommend to members that they support them today. However, I hope to hear an acknowledgement from her that the current exemptions for commercial purposes are causing additional cost to the public purse for environmental conservation and that the issue needs to be addressed.

I move amendment 54.

I want to clarify that the intent behind amendments 19 and 20 is to have distinct targets for condition and extent. I take on board what the minister said about the wording of “conservation importance”, but would she be happy to work with me ahead of stage 3 on the point about distinct targets for condition and extent?

I am happy not to move amendments 21, 105 and 106 on the basis that the minister said that she is happy to work with us ahead of stage 3. In response to my previous intervention, she said that she is always happy to work with members ahead of any stage. She might not be aware of this, but I requested a meeting ahead of stage 2 so that we could discuss and work on areas of agreement. I was not given a meeting until after today—I think that it is next week, or possibly the week after.

I know that the minister is not in charge of her diary, but I wanted to point that out. She obviously managed to have time to meet Ms Tweed, who happens to be in the same party as her. I know that that is how these things work, but there are members around the table who want to work constructively with the Government to bring forward proposals.

On the basis that I will have further conversations with the cabinet secretary ahead of stage 3, I will not move amendment 19.

Amendments 19 and 20 not moved.

Amendment 42 moved—[Mercedes Villalba].

Convener, I am glad that you made that point, because yes, I am aware of that—I was just coming to it.

The demand for timber is in construction and it is for hardwood. The majority of what we grow and produce is softwood. It gets chopped up and exported while we import a great deal of wood for construction. We no longer have the vast native hardwood forests that we once had. We can bring them back by having mixed woodland and continuous cover, rather than chopping down whole forests at a time. There is a pathway to that. I accept that it will be a transitional process and will not happen overnight, but it is not the case that we cannot make interventions on non-native species because we are dependent on them. We are dependent on importing high-quality timber from overseas, and we need to increase our native-grown timber for construction and for the transition.

Are you saying that you envisage the provision in the bill being used only if Environmental Standards Scotland, for some reason, no longer existed or became a different organisation? Is that why that provision is there? If ESS existed and were functioning well, you would not envisage any need to appoint a different body to carry out its functions.

On the scope of Alasdair Allan’s amendment, will there be any requirements or conditions for anyone who is affected or has an interest? Could anybody in the world have an interest?

Yes, according to the amendment as drafted.

I would be grateful if the member could point me towards any reports or evidence on the breakdown of the economic impact in relation to native versus non-native species. My understanding is that game shooting does take place with native species. Is the member saying that no shooting would be possible if we did not allow non-native species to be introduced?

I think that this is my first time winding up a group at stage 2, so I am quite excited, but I will not take up too much more of everyone’s time.

I am pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary has acknowledged stakeholders’ concerns about invasive non-native species as drivers of biodiversity loss, and I look forward to working with her on revised amendments ahead of stage 3.

I will take a few minutes to respond to the points that the cabinet secretary made about conifers helping Scotland to meet climate change targets. There are native and non-native species, and we have an abundance of non-native Sitka spruce. Yes, they sequester carbon, but that type of tree is very fast growing and has a short life cycle, which means that it is chopped down and then the carbon is released. It is possible to meet our climate change targets by investing in native woodland.