Oral evidence: Invasive species, HC 913Wednesday 29 January 2014

Oral evidence, 29 January 2014.

Witnesses

Dr John David, Royal Horticultural Society, Martin Emmett, Horticultural Trade Association, and Dr David Bullock, National Trust, gave evidence.

Chair

We will proceed straight away. I think each of you has just sat through the previous session, so you will have heard some of the evidence and you will know that we have some time constraints. First of all, can I welcome each of you and thank you for coming along? It is no surprise, in a way, that what we will be doing is rehearsing some of the questions that we have just been through, but with a separate set of witnesses. If I may, I would like to direct the first questions, just to give us a sense of how much of a problem invasive species are, as far as your own organisation is concerned. Dr Bullock, you might like to go first.

Dr Bullock

Sure. Thank you, and good afternoon. When you ask our rangering staff in our countryside properties, when they are outside managing those properties, how much of their time they are spending managing the habitats, they would say about half that time they are managing vegetation and about half of that vegetation is non-native invasive species.

Chair

That is quite a lot.

Dr Bullock

It is quite a lot. For example, we know how much it costs to get rid of Rhododendron ponticum. On the flat on Brownsea Island, it is £4,000 per hectare. As soon as you take that management to somewhere like this, the steep slopes of Lundy Island, it goes up to £12,000 per hectare. In both places our objective is, for different reasons, to eradicate Rhododendron from those two islands. Yes, we do not underestimate the costs of managing for non-native invasive species.

Chair

Would you like to add to that, Dr David or Mr Emmett?

Dr David

Sure. At the RHS we have four gardens, so the impact of invasives on our gardens is relatively small. However, I would again draw attention to the Rhododendron that is generally known as ponticum as a source of disease, particularly in terms of Phytophthora ramorum, the sudden oak death pathogen. More widely, in terms of our members, the Society has over 400,000 members, keen gardeners. There are the usual suspects in terms of the impact of invasives—what you do if you have a property with Japanese knotweed, for example.

Chair

Mr Emmett?

Martin Emmett

Thank you. I represent the Horticultural Trades Association, which is primarily concerned with the gardening industry and ornamental plant supply. Thinking specifically about nursery production systems, of course we get the direct consequence of the pathogen itself, which might be causing significant crop problems. If you look at Chalara, or ash dieback, we are talking about an industry worth about £2.5 million per annum. There is also the consequence of the actions that we take to control them; we have destruction orders for which we receive no compensation. Most destruction orders would be for invasives that are a direct problem on our crops, so it is very easy to understand why they are happening. In other cases, the impact on our own crops could be somewhat indirect. There might be a pest that creates very little direct damage, but it might be that that, for example, is a whitefly that carries diseases that affect other crops, so we sometimes have destruction orders on ornamental crops. The problem could be relatively easy to deal with when it comes to the crop itself, but it could affect the habitats or other crops. Then there are the costs of the plant health regime that we are operating in this country primarily to protect ourselves against invasives, which involves several inspections and the like.

Chair

That is helpful. Do either of you two wish to add to the list of detriments that Mr Emmett has just set out?

Dr David

I would certainly say that if you add in pest and disease issues as invasives—they do not fall within the strict interpretation of invasives—horticulture is affected by quite a few of those. Ash dieback has been mentioned, but there is also chestnut leaf miner, which came in at the beginning of this century, box blight and box tree moth caterpillar, which is just coming in and spreading through. Those can have quite a serious effect on garden plants.

Chair

Yes, Dr Bullock?

Dr Bullock

Can I add an intangible? You can get quite a lot of costings done, but it is much more difficult to cost out the profound sense of loss of iconic native species due to non-native species, and also to the effects of Phytophthora and so on in our ornamental gardens, which are national treasures. There is an extra cost, a societal cost, to—

Chair

You feel that is not factored in sufficiently?

Dr Bullock

No. It is very difficult to do it, but we are very aware of it. We will try to factor it in, but it is not easy to put a cost on.

Chair

I want to try to speed up our session now, so brief answers please. Is the approach of the draft European Union directive sufficiently precautionary? Is it going in the right direction or does it need to do more? Perhaps you will take that on, Dr Bullock.

Dr Bullock

Pleased the cap is gone, and also very concerned about native species in the southern part of Europe travelling and becoming established as non-natives further north.

Martin Emmett

It is going in the right direction. It needs more regional emphasis, and we would like to see the trade involved in the process of developing such lists.

Dr David

I have a major concern with the European Union legislation insofar as it bans possession. We do not know what is going to be on that list and, with the cap having gone, we do not know how big that list of banned species is going to be. Not only are they banning in trade, not only are they banning in terms of planting in the wild—which nobody should even think of doing—but they are banning on possession. This will mean that innocuous plants could be affected.

Chair

Is that something that you would expect to see a UK Government in the ongoing negotiations to be taking up in advance of any confirmation of the draft directive?

Dr David

Could you ask the question again, please?

Chair

Yes. Would you be expecting Defra to be voicing some of the concerns that you have just expressed in the course of the remaining negotiations on the draft directive?

Dr David

My understanding is that the legislation is at too late a stage to address that particular concern.

Chair

Fine. Thank you.

Zac Goldsmith

Just on that last one of possession, what does that mean? For a garden owner, does that mean that it would become illegal to have that plant, although it may have been there for years?

Dr David

Yes, to have that plant. That is my understanding of the legislation.

Zac Goldsmith

But that would only apply effectively to plants that have been blacklisted?

Dr David

A list of Union concern, yes.

Zac Goldsmith

Sorry, I just wanted to clarify that. Kew Gardens, yes, quite. I just want to address this to all of you—perhaps starting with Martin Emmett. To what extent do you think the horticultural trade itself is a key pathway for invasive species into this country?

Martin Emmett

I have heard that in your previous evidence it has been somewhat emphasised as a key pathway, and I felt that was a little bit unfair. If you look at the ash dieback, for example, that would almost certainly have got into the country wind-dispersed, in due course. In fact the whole biology of how it got into the country is still very much under debate. You looked previously at things like the Harlequin ladybird as well. Again, it would be another wind-dispersed pest problem. Yes, the horticultural trade has a responsibility here, but I do feel sometimes that we have been a little bit unfairly singled out.

Zac Goldsmith

Do you all agree with that? Do you have a comment on all that?

Dr Bullock

I agree. I think it is trade. It is not just horticultural trade. For example, stone imported to England from continental Europe, without any quarantine restrictions, can bring in non-native invasive species and diseases.

Zac Goldsmith

I do not think anyone is suggesting it is the only cause, and none of the evidence that we have had would suggest that, but there have been examples of where the blame could and should be placed on the shoulders of the horticultural trade. I am becoming a bit of an Oak Processionary Moth bore in this session—its home is in Richmond Park, which I represent—but I think it is accepted that that was almost certainly brought in as part of the horticultural trade into a centre in Kew, although not Kew Gardens. There are many other examples that we have been given. I wonder whether or not you might be downplaying it a little too much.

Martin Emmett

No, I do not think so. The Oak Processionary Moth, as I understand it, was probably not even known 20 years ago. It originated in Eastern Europe. If you look at its progression across Europe, I think you might have to conclude it would have eventually reached this country anyway.

Zac Goldsmith

That is a hypothesis, but the point is that it was not deliberately brought in. I believe it was brought in as eggs on a fairly mature collection of oak trees. I forget which country they were brought in from. Whether we knew about it or not, plants brought into this country surely need to be much more carefully vetted than they are. You would hope that the system would be in place to prevent the eggs of any caterpillar, any kind of insect, because we simply do not know what impact they are going to have. Would you accept that a failing of some sort that led to their being brought in, irrespective of whether or not they would finally make their way in 20 years from now?

Martin Emmett

Yes, it could be the case, but I would suggest that essentially what we have to depend on is a good plant health regime across the whole of Europe. In effect, if you look at the way European policy is going on plant health, it is trying to address problems at source. We have some new plant health regulations going through the EU. What we need to see is that we apply the same type of rigour to plant health in other countries—Mediterranean-region countries, for example—as we do have at the moment in the UK.

Zac Goldsmith

I am going to try to speed up because we do not have a lot of time, but it seems to me that within the trade there are certain areas that look much riskier than other areas. For example, this increasing trend towards buying very large trees with very large root balls, full of earth, whose contents we cannot possibly really know. Given that all of those trees eventually are going to be growing in this climate, theoretically all of them could, therefore, be propagated in this climate. Do you not accept that there is a level of risk there, where the downside, the risk, exceeds greatly the upside of that particular aspect of the trade?

Martin Emmett

I agree there is a level of risk. I do not agree that the downside always exceeds the upside. It is fundamental to our trade. It is a very international trade. It is a very global trade. No, I cannot unconditionally accept that argument, I am afraid.

Zac Goldsmith

Before I move on, does anyone want to comment on that last point?

Dr Bullock

I would like to add that a lot of what we are going to be talking about is effectively down to behaviour change, and in the case of what you are talking about in terms of quarantine prior to coming to, for example, the UK from other places, we could negotiate a time to check plants that are not pesticided, so they are not masking diseases, that are quarantined prior to coming over here. We could then keep them in quarantine and do the same thing. There is still the risk that I come back to of inanimate stuff coming over, which harbours species of non-natives and also plant diseases—stone, in particular.

Zac Goldsmith

Can I ask again, in terms of other drivers, which are the significant drivers or pathways—however you describe it—specifically that we have a reasonable chance of being able to address? From a policy point of view, where should the focus be, in addition to what we have just discussed?

Dr Bullock

I would argue—we have said it many times—that appropriate risk assessments are in place to get priorities there. I think some of the priorities should be based on impact, and assessment-based on expert judgment, on urgency as well, and that of course based on expert judgment. Also then the instruments are available at the local government and central Government level to empower and enable action to happen very quickly. I think it is almost a Venn diagram of experts/scientists, citizens, early detections, and also state or local authority support. Without the three of them together, we will not be able to tackle it. The prioritisation process based on risk assessment is critical, and that is based on: what would happen if this species got loose? How urgently do we need to act?

Zac Goldsmith

Given the very long list of species in Europe that could be of concern to us or are of concern to us, how do you believe that action should be prioritised?

Dr Bullock

I think we can and should make good use of expert judgment. We have good enough experts to make lots of sensible judgments. They may be right; they may be wrong sometimes about what species are likely to be or what diseases are likely to be there. Horizon-scanning was mentioned earlier on, and I think there is great potential for that to be legitimised and used more forcibly in making some judgments. It is not based entirely on science; it is based on expert judgment.

Zac Goldsmith

Chair, I am going to stop because I am worried that we have a lot of questions and could end up—

Chair

I am concerned, because it is not clear to me whether or not there is going to be a vote at 4.00 pm. I need to gauge whether or not there will be a quorum afterwards if there is a vote, but we will move on to Mark Lazarowicz.

Mark Lazarowicz

Yes, thank you very much for taking up some of the themes of Zac’s question. In terms of effective horizon-scanning, how realistic is that for species that are not yet known to pose a risk? You have to select what you are scanning the horizon for, do you not?

Dr Bullock

Do you mind if I just pick this one up, just with one example? I was involved in a study group looking at horizon-scanning recently. The red lionfish, which is established in the Caribbean, non-native there—it is possible that, with a bit more surface sea temperature rise through climate change and north-west Atlantic drift, it will start to colonise the Mediterranean. It is a highly predatory fish. It is also quite toxic, and it is predicted to have a big impact. It is not here yet. It is not on this side of the Atlantic, but it could get here. We need that kind of forward-thinking to look at the list of thugs that are out there that are not here yet.

Mark Lazarowicz

There are a number of issues I could pursue, but I will perhaps leave that aside at the moment. In terms of the way surveillance is organised within Britain itself for invasive plant species, is there any way anything could change there to improve it? In particular, could the horticultural industry have a greater systematic role in reporting possible new species?

Martin Emmett

Yes. Can I make one point that I think is really important? It is that the horticultural trade in the UK has shifted over the last 20 years to integrated pest management, which means we are using a lot more cultural and a lot more biological systems to control pests. The consequence of that is that our monitoring systems have to be a lot more vigilant. I have a much higher degree of confidence now that, when we have a problem within the trade, we do spot it very, very quickly. We cannot afford not to. You cannot operate IPM biological systems without dealing very quickly with the problem.

Mark Lazarowicz

In terms of other agencies and sectors as well as the industry itself, what role do they have, or how can their role be improved or developed? The role of the public was mentioned, and the regulatory agencies of various sorts, government, central and local. Could more be done there to be able to try to watch the sectors?

Dr David

In various bits of evidence that has already been given, a great deal of credit has been given to the Non-native Species Secretariat, and that is absolutely right. That has done an enormous amount of work on very small resources, and its website provides a sort of portal for people to report invasive species and detection of invasive species. That needs to be amplified through education and campaigns. A certain amount of evidence has been given in relation to the “Be Plantwise” campaign, and that is a good model to start with. That engaged horticulture and the aquatic trade, and all the other people who were affected by it. I think it is about raising awareness across the country so that people become more aware of these things and they report them in, effectively, through the shared portal like that.

Chair

Yes, Mr Emmett?

Martin Emmett

Can I just make a comment about citizen science, though? I think you were advised in your previous meeting that private citizens may receive compensation when they notify against a pest or disease. That is generally not the case. If you have a tree in your garden that is badly infected with an invasive species, you may well have to cut it down and that will typically be at your own expense. With the Asian longhorn beetle, the Forestry Commission found some extra funding to pay private citizens, but that was an exceptional case. I think there is a limiting factor in terms of engaging the public when it comes to their own gardens, for example. They may find themselves liable for charges they may not want to face.

Mark Lazarowicz

Finally, we heard some concerns earlier or previously about the slowness of regulatory risk assessments. Do you think that is a problem? If so, is there any way in which the process could be streamlined so that the assessment can be made at an earlier stage?

Martin Emmett

My worry is that one of the ways that people streamline things is to summarise things. We have talked in your previous sessions about cotoneaster and the faults that were made there in terms of treating a whole genus as potentially as a pariah. I think, unfortunately, we do have to be a little bit systematic and methodical, but I do hope that we take the opportunity to involve the trade in that process as much as possible.

Chair

I hope we have heard that.

Mrs Spelman

A tiny question on horticultural trades. There have been instances in the past where an invasive species has decimated a commercial crop, where the industry itself has created its own industry scheme, where all the growers of that crop pay into a scheme so that the affected growers are compensated, to encourage people to own up to where they find it. This was Rhizomania in sugar beet. In horticulture, is there anything parallel?

Martin Emmett

No. Simple answer.

Dr Offord

I want to go back to what I asked the previous panel, and that is about the cost-effectiveness of controlling the invasive species. Particularly, what would you believe to be the consequences of introducing bio-controls for invasive plants such as Rhododendrons?

Dr Bullock

We are aware of the releases of the psyllid to try to control Japanese knotweed, and I am sure we do not know the full outcomes of that at the moment. I would need to turn it on its head and just say, what do we mean by success here, and what does it mean when you have controlled this plant? What was the objective in the first place? What did you want to see as a result of that action? As far as I can see, there is far too little reporting of what would be real success, which is the restoration of something that is native, habitats of species, and virtually no reporting of failures. I think there is an issue there that we need to focus on and emphasise. In terms of biological control, in the National Trust we have experience of applying the weevil that would devour water fern, Azolla. Characteristically the water fern sometimes completely disappears from water bodies, for some unknown reason. We brought the weevil in, but the week before the Azolla had disappeared as if it had been frightened off. We have no effective knowledge of how these work. As far as I can see, they rarely apply it at the moment. I know of no good examples for the usual round of suspects that are out there, except for the trial releases. It seems to be very early days.

Dr Offord

I also want to ask you questions about what you have learned from other countries in their eradication and detection of invasive species.

Dr Bullock

If I speak about vertebrates and perhaps my colleagues can talk about plants. We eradicated rats from Lundy Island fairly recently, about 10 years ago, to save the Manx shearwater from becoming extinct through predation by rats. Our knowledge of how to do that and the people that we hired in to do that came very firmly from New Zealand, where—as we heard in the previous session—there are much stronger and rigorous measures to try to combat non-native invasive species, whether they are vertebrates, pests on islands or plant diseases. We have a lot to learn from New Zealand, and we did learn and we are still applying that rigour and those methods.

Dr Offord

Again, Lundy being an island, it is possible to eradicate a pest such as rats. But on the mainland of the UK—and particularly thinking of your organisation—how do you feel about Defra’s approach of getting conservation groups to undertake this kind of work? It works on Lundy, but on the mainland of the UK?

Dr Bullock

Our focus would be water catchments, typically, where we have some of the priority species for action, such as Japanese knotweed, often Rhododendron, Himalayan balsam and so on. We recognise that unless we have true partnerships with our neighbouring landowners and tackle the whole catchment, it is pointless our doing our little bit. We know very well that non-native invasive plants can typically spread through vegetative propagules, for example; they often survive in water and are often associated with water catchments. We have to work in partnership. That is where citizens, local authorities and experts need to work together and be pushed in that direction.

Dr Offord

That is great. Thank you. My final question was about looking at the ecology. Again, it is the third question I asked the previous panel. Do we know enough about the ecology of invasive species?

Dr Bullock

In terms of some of the plants, I think we do and we do not. In terms of the invertebrates, we sometimes do. But a very good anecdote here is that in 1977 the muntjac deer was considered to be benign, and it is now on schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Part of the reason is that many of these species go through a lag phase, which we have heard talk about earlier; they are sleepers, and we do not really understand what they can do when their populations start to rocket and then have a big impact. That is going to require expert judgment. We do not necessarily have the science to back us up. We need to use gut feeling as well.

Dr Offord

Thank you.

Peter Aldous

I will be very brief. We heard the last panel’s views on schedule 9 listing, and I would welcome your views on that. Generally, also with regard to the possibility of a whitelist, and perhaps could a greenlist solution be a way forward, where you would have species assessed and identified as low-risk?

Martin Emmett

Speaking for the horticultural trades as a whole—and also in fact for Plant Heritage, which is our leading charity of concern—as we are maintained by diversity in cultivated plants, we cannot support a whitelist. It would definitely have an impact on innovation. Innovation is certainly absolutely key to the gardening industry. Imagine a Chelsea that was the same every year; it would not have very much appeal—you might think it is the same anyway, but we do try to innovate. It is absolutely key. A whitelist would have a major impact for innovation. In fact, the sorts of people that we are talking about, who experiment with plants, tend to be smaller nurseries and private individuals as well. We are talking about getting the message right down to that level. A whitelist is something we would absolutely not support.

Peter Aldous

Dr David?

Dr David

I echo the thoughts or comments that were made by an earlier panellist on schedule 9. The 2010 revision to schedule 9 was not at all transparent as to how the list was put together. There was certainly inadequate consultation in relation to that and some very odd things got on—particularly water hyacinth, on which the Non-native Species Secretariat has carried out a risk assessment; it has said it is of very low risk to the UK of being invasive. Cotoneaster is another. Crocosmia, the montbretia is the common name for it. There were all sorts of complexities about the listing in terms of the definition of a species. A species may include any sub-species, variety or hybrid. With the case of Rhododendron, you have a problem. There are 350 cultivars of Rhododendron that have ponticum in their parentage. According to the law, technically those are also banned from being planted in the wild. Of course I would never endorse doing that anyway, but there are potentials, if the regulation in relation to that was extended to be more severe in terms of banning planting in any circumstance or trade. I think there are some real complexities with that listing process. That said, I also endorse what was said earlier, which is that when it is put together properly, the blacklist is the right way around. I certainly share Martin Emmett’s view that whitelisting would be totally inappropriate, as far as we are concerned. I think there is some interesting stuff to be said about the greenlisting approach. I would like to see more detail on how that works in practice, but it is a way around of saying we could let new trades through if we had them on a sort of greenlist approach. Fundamentally, we would want to see the blacklist as—

Peter Aldous

Dr Bullock?

Dr Bullock

I have nothing to add.

Mrs Spelman

Very quickly. In the previous answer, Mr Emmett has already stated a preference for a regional approach in the proposed new directive. I wonder if the other two of you had anything to say on that. This point about, would labelling by country of origin help combat the risks associated with invasive non-native species?

Dr Bullock

I think there is a good argument for risk-based trading, and so identification, as you have described. I think we would be remiss if we were not sensitive to latitude, in terms of European countries and the species that they hold and can support because of the particular climates that are there right now. Water hyacinth is in Spain and Portugal, just like the Cattle Egret and the Little Egret. It will get here soon, with the present climate change scenarios, so we need to be wary of that. Yes, I agree with both of those points.

Dr Whitehead

There has been some discussion of the question of changes in the law, particularly in relation to access to land and property to carry out control measures. There are some suggestions that the Law Commission is looking at such changes. What do you think might be the utility, in effect, of changes in the regulations, on access to land and also legal liability of the introduction of non-native species?

Dr Bullock

Taking people with you and properly consulting are the only way you are going to tackle non-native invasive species by way of eradication, certainly. I know full well that some eradication programmes can be very controversial. You need to start from that basis, because that is when you can start to talk to neighbours. Rather than throw some weighty legislative instrument at your neighbours and say, “I am going to come on to your land because I have the right to get rid of the Japanese knotweed because it is in the catchment”, I think the consultation process, the softly-softly approach, is very much more important, although I would not stand in the way if the issue was critical. We are famous for seabirds in a European context. If rats got on to some of those islands where there are seabirds, where there are no rats at the moment, it would be vital to act very quickly. In that kind of situation, it would be helpful to have a statutory instrument that allowed us to kill those rats before it became a problem and we lost that precious resource. It is a question of degrees and importance and urgency and significance of the asset.

Dr Whitehead

Being able to get in there and do it in advance of any permission or discussion with the landowner at that point?

Dr Bullock

If it is top priority—and I think that would be a top priority—I would say yes.

Martin Emmett

Can I just comment? In terms of the current plant health regime, of course our plant health inspectors enjoy that power at the moment. I believe they have applied it very effectively and sensitively. I think the current regime is what we should keep.

Dr Whitehead

I think this is particularly concerning Mr Emmett. There has been the question of the levy that might be imposed on businesses selling non-native species. Would that be something that you would favour or find any utility in pursuing?

Martin Emmett

No.

Chair

Would you like to elaborate?

Martin Emmett

Yes. If you look at the garden plant trade, the majority of it is non-native species. Could I just add something about the complexity of this argument? Listening to ecologists, on the one hand you might like us not to grow non-native species. Then, when we do grow native species, we get ecologists complaining about the cultivated forms genetically polluting the natural populations. We are in a little bit of a difficult position here, between a rock and a hard place. Fundamentally, gardening has always been about growing plants where they are not supposed to be—that is essentially what gardening is. Essentially, you are always challenging an ecological boundary, and for centuries we have managed to do it sufficiently sensitively in the majority of cases, accepting that there have been exceptions.

Dr Whitehead

When we talk about non-native species sales, we are not just talking about plants. For example, one of the issues about terrapins in ponds is essentially related to their sale as exotic pets. Would such a levy or even licensing apply to such sales, being of utility where it related to vertebrates, or non-plant species?

Dr Bullock

I am trying to think about how it would work in practice, and I am not quite sure if it would. There are so many of those vertebrates out there. It is not just red-eared terrapins these days; it is box turtles and so on and lots of reptiles and amphibians. I think it would be tricky to put into practice, even if it was desirable.

Chair

Before I finally close the session, I have two very quick questions. What is the tendency in England and Scotland, compared to the approach in Ireland? Do you have any comments on that at all?

Dr Bullock

I certainly have a view on that. I quite like what Scotland has done in terms of the WANE Act and the legislation down to species control orders, for example. I think that is a good code of practice that has been generated. I also think that it does not make biogeographical sense for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to do anything other than agree on action together as an island. That is going across a nation-state boundary, but it is a totally porous boundary for both people and also for non-native invasive species. For example, tackling the grey squirrel, tackling the muntjac deer, which has recently got loose in Ireland. Phytophthora and so on. It needs to be an all-Ireland island approach.

Chair

My final question relates to the evidence that we had from the RSPB. You will be aware that we just published a report on overseas territories. I wonder if you have any recommendation that you would like to bring to our attention in respect of invasive species and the financial support that might be needed in overseas territories, or the implications of that issue there in relation to the UK.

Dr Bullock

I have two points. Yes, absolutely, we should invest heavily in the amazing biodiversity that is threatened by non-native invasive species in our overseas territories. Secondly, I draw attention to biocides regulations that are going through at the moment, and the need to keep hold of the promise of a derogation to continue to use second-generation anticoagulants to kill rodents on those islands where there are seabirds. At the moment, that may not be possible, in which case we could lose a lot of tremendous wildlife resource on islands in the overseas territories and also in the UK.

Mark Lazarowicz

Which regulations are these? Do they apply to—

Dr Bullock

Biocides product regulations.

Mark Lazarowicz

The UK regulations?

Dr Bullock

No, it is EU, and it is designed to restrict the use of second-generation rodenticide anticoagulants. Not warfarin, but difenacoum and so on. That is a great concern if that restriction applies to seabird islands, where there are rats, for example, and it could be the overseas territories or it could be UK islands. If we do not have access to these effective poisons, we could lose a real national treasure there.

Chair

That is very helpful indeed. Can I thank each of you once again for coming along this afternoon? I hope you will take an interest in our inquiry when we finally make our recommendations and report. Thank you very much. Oral evidence: Invasive species, HC 913 26