Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app is showing no sign of working. I would have voted no.

As the member recognises, the two bridges—I understand them to be the Cuthbertson memorial bridge and the Diamond Jubilee bridge—are not in the hands of the public sector. However, I am sure that officials at the Scottish Government end are only too willing to meet the communities concerned, as the member suggests, to find what solutions might exist.

I am conscious that the loss of the bridges has created problems for people who live to the west of the river. The Scottish Government has a bridge maintenance fund, which has contributed £243,000 to bridges in Dumfries and Galloway. I am sure that further conversations will be had.

A fully circular waste management system would keep valuable materials flowing in our economy, reduce reliance on virgin resources, reduce emissions and promote green jobs in repair, reuse and recycling. It is therefore welcome news that statistics from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency show that, in 2023, the amount of household waste generated and the carbon impact of Scotland’s household waste were at their lowest level since records began in 2011. The Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 and the draft circular economy and waste route map set out actions to develop a more circular economy in Scotland by 2030.

The member will be aware that the proportion of waste that we are talking about in that regard is small but, yes, there are safeguards that the Scottish Government seeks to apply in those unusual circumstances. It should be said that total household waste in Scotland is down by 26,000 tonnes a year, that landfill for biodegradable waste is being phased out and that the solutions that the member refers to are unusual rather than usual.

Although the footbridges are not the responsibility of Dumfries and Galloway Council or, indeed, the Scottish Government, the council provided £66,000 to support the recovery of the two bridges and a further £50,000 of capital funding to the Annan—A Tale of Two Bridges community group to deliver an options appraisal exercise. The Scottish Government reimbursed the council for 50 per cent of the total funding provided.

The Scottish Government will have to study the implications of the UK Government’s budget for Scotland. We work with suppliers and others to ensure that there is as much certainty as possible on those matters, but we are at the mercy of decisions in the UK about our overall budget. However, we certainly keep in touch with suppliers and agencies to ensure that there is as much certainty in the system as possible.

Heating our homes and workplaces causes 20 per cent of our emissions. We have already made significant progress: emissions from buildings fell by 32 per cent between 1990 and 2022.

The energy efficiency of our homes is increasing across all tenures and more heat pumps are being installed than ever before. More than 150,000 households in Scotland have already benefited from our delivery schemes and we provided more than £210 million to those schemes in the last financial year.

We intend to lay regulations in December 2024 to deliver a Scottish equivalent to the Passivhaus standard.

I am happy to acknowledge the important work that local authorities do in that area. I would also mention the £2 million for phase 2 of the Scottish invasive species initiative for tackling invasive plants and mink across the north-east of Scotland, for instance, as well as more than £1.5 million for the Orkney native wildlife project to eradicate stoats, and the £1 million going to the saving Scotland’s red squirrels project to control grey squirrels and reinforce protections for our iconic native red squirrel, as many members have mentioned today.

I will make one specific point about the yellow-legged hornet. Although no sightings have yet been officially recorded in Scotland, we are not complacent about that. My understanding is that we have contingency plans in place should sightings be confirmed.

The nature restoration fund also actively supports a range of other projects, including tackling rhododendron ponticum across areas that are important for nature and enhancing biosecurity for Scotland’s seabirds.

On the point that Jackie Baillie and Colin Smyth raised about Sitka spruce, the Government is aware of the concerns about the self-seeding of the species and it is now reviewing the guidance about buffer zones to seek to address the issue. We appreciate the point being made.

I appreciate the point that Christine Grahame makes, and I will undertake to copy her and others in on the work that is being done on reviewing guidance in that area.

We know that all those measures, important as they are, are not enough on their own to address the problem of established INNS in Scotland. Securing responsible private investment alongside public funds will be critical in supporting long-term plans to tackle invasive species such as rhododendron, giant hogweed and mink more widely and effectively.

However, it is not just about tackling those INNS that are established in Scotland. We must take action to enhance prevention and surveillance for new INNS and to develop robust and rapid response measures to tackle incursions effectively. We have been working closely with other UK Administrations on finalising five GB pathway action plans to raise stakeholder awareness of INNS and of what can be done to prevent them from becoming established in the UK. We are also developing a Scottish angling pathway action plan, which is relevant in that respect. We know that we need to improve prevention and surveillance, which are especially critical to the eradication of predators on Scotland’s seabird islands and in the marine environment, where control becomes challenging.

The Scottish Government welcomes the debate and the insightful report that has been produced by Scottish Environment LINK, and we look forward to working closely with Scottish Environment LINK and our other stakeholders as we develop and implement our INNS plan.

I, too, thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing this fascinating and important debate to the chamber, and I thank members for their speeches. I also thank the organisations that were involved in producing the Scottish Environment LINK report, “Invasive Non-native Species in Scotland: A Plan for Effective Action”.

It has certainly been an interesting and useful debate. I never thought that I would find myself mentioning Mr Burnett of Leys and Elvis in the same sentence, but it seems that they have something in common in their alleged taste for eating squirrels. In any case, the debate is timely, given that the 16th conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity is currently taking place in Colombia, where countries are working together to ensure that the global biodiversity framework is effectively implemented.

That framework recognises the need, as members have done, for urgent action to tackle the current impacts of invasive species and to prevent the establishment of new ones. It is really important for us in Scotland, as it requires the eradication or control of invasive non-native species in priority sites such as islands—in my constituency, for instance, I am very aware of the protracted efforts to remove mink from the islands and hedgehogs from Uist.

All those efforts are why we are embedding key actions on biodiversity, including controlling and preventing the spread of INNS across Scottish Government policy. We are finalising our Scottish biodiversity strategy and delivery plan for publication later this year. In that delivery plan, we have committed to developing and implementing a Scottish plan for INNS surveillance, prevention and control, and securing wider support measures to enable long-term, effective INNS removal at scale. We are working hard on developing our Scottish INNS plan, which will set out in detail what we intend to do to tackle INNS. We will ensure that resources are better focused on preventing and controlling those species where possible.

As we undertake that work, we will engage with a wide range of stakeholders and delivery partners. We will also look carefully at the recommendations in the LINK report. Many of those recommendations are already under consideration or in train, but we recognise that more action is needed. However, Government cannot do that alone. We must work in partnership with and use the expertise of those who manage our land and who know it best. We will need an inclusive, whole-of-society approach that engages communities, businesses and decision makers alike.

I will pick up on Ms Nicoll’s question about funding. We know that tackling INNS requires significant investment, which is why commitments such as our £65 million nature restoration fund are essential. Since its launch in July 2021, the fund has provided more than £7.6 million to support projects to tackle INNS.

I should emphasise that the nature restoration fund has not been withdrawn. There is a continued commitment to the £65 million figure during the current parliamentary session. It is true to say that the local authority strand of the fund has been repurposed under pressures, but I hope that I can reassure Ms Nicoll about the Government’s continued commitment in that area.