Mercedes Villalba
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“Ultimately, it has to be fair to the landowner and the communities that are trying to access it, so we have to strike that balance while making those improvements where we can. I take this opportunity to wish Mercedes Villalba all the very best. I have enjoyed our work together.”
“A constituent of mine said: “I’ve been begging repeatedly for months for them to process my ADP claim, only to be ignored, told to contact charities or completely brushed off.”
“How will the recommendations in the community right to buy review strengthen existing mechanisms or create new support mechanisms so that more communities can take ownership of their land? Is it likely that an amending bill will be needed, next session? Mairi Gougeon: I thank Mercedes Villalba for her interest in the topic.”
“Shirley-Anne Somerville: I would be delighted to do so, but the member will have to be exceptionally quick in progressing the matter, as she will be aware that the pre-election period is coming up. I would have been delighted to take that forward at an earlier point had she raised the matter with me sooner.”
“That is exactly why we must heed the just transition commission’s warning that, if the Scottish Government does not use every lever at its disposal to fight the climate crisis, we risk losing the social licence for climate action to dangerous climate change deniers.”
“Two realities are happening. One is that we are far too reliant on the burning of fossil fuel. That is the case not only in this country but in countries across the whole world, and we are seeing the effects of that, including in the weather events that are impacting all our communities.”
The complete record
Every one of 259 lines we hold for Mercedes Villalba, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 6.
“I am deeply disappointed that we do not have further protections relating to invasive non-native species, particularly Sitka spruce, because the issue of seed rain is far more relevant in Scotland than it is across the rest of the UK. Future legislation on that topic must address the issue head on. It is my hope that some of the issues that I have outlined today will be addressed in the next parliamentary session, as they are not going to go away. The longer we wait to take decisive and ambitious action, the more costly and complex the necessary action will be. But action we must take, so we, on these benches, will vote for the bill tonight and look forward to seeing it become an act. The Presiding Officer: We move to winding-up speeches.”
“It outlines responsible forestry standards to help forests become resilient to environmental degradation. However, simply creating the power is not enough, and it is incumbent on this Parliament to ensure that the next Scottish Government uses it. It is my hope that the next Parliament will address some of the issues that I have outlined today, because they are not going to go away. The longer that we wait to take decisive and ambitious action, the more costly and complex the necessary action will be. However, action we must take. We, on the Labour benches, will vote for the bill tonight, and we look forward to seeing it become an act.”
“We have worked constructively to agree to an amendment to ensure that the vital role that Environmental Standards Scotland currently plays in upholding environmental law remains independent from Government and business. I welcome that, but it is not enough. A polluter-pays principle would put the ethical and financial responsibility on to the developers and private companies that are causing harm to the environment. In doing so, it would relieve the pressure on NatureScot, which uses its stretched budget to mitigate the damage caused by private companies. I am pleased that more progress has been made on forestry, and I thank Ms Gougeon for working with me on amendment 40. Agreeing to it and giving the UK forestry standard a statutory footing is a huge step in the right direction.”
“Although the bill represents a positive step forward, it will not be enough alone to outpace the rate at which biodiversity is declining. Our Parliament and our Governments must go further and faster than ever before. Although I am delighted to see strong steps forward in the bill, I had understood that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy would work with me on some areas of amendment, and I am disappointed that that did not come to fruition. Even though we were not able to make headway in the bill on a polluter-pays principle, ecological connectivity, the invasive non-native species action plan or exemptions under the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011, progress has been made.”
“Throughout the passage of the bill, I have consistently made the case that it should seek not simply to prevent further degradation of the natural environment but to restore and regenerate it, because Governments have repeatedly failed to meet their environmental targets, failing us and our shared moral obligation to the world. We have seen centuries of habitat destruction due to overexploitation, the release of invasive non- native species and pollution, meaning that Scotland is now one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Our peatlands, which are vital in sequestering carbon, are damaged. The Caledonian forest, which once covered around 1.5 million hectares, is now reduced to just 1 to 3 per cent of its original size. A number of our iconic native species, such as the red squirrel, have been driven to near extinction.”
“This power would provide that underpinning, thereby allowing the Scottish ministers to better enforce the principles of sustainable forest management, which they are under a duty to promote. I hope that members see the value of that power and support it. I thank Ms Gougeon for her support for the amendment, in particular on the issue of seed rain and sensitive habitats. Sustainable and responsible management is crucial in protecting Scotland’s forests and land for generations to come, and the power in the amendment would demonstrate our commitment to that ethos. I hope that members across the chamber will agree with me on that and will support my amendment. I move amendment 40.”
“After constructive engagement with Ms Gougeon, her officials and representatives of Scottish Forestry, I am pleased to bring amendment 40 to the chamber today. Amendment 40 would provide the Scottish ministers with the power to make regulations with a specific focus on sustainable forest management, grounded in the UK forestry standard. The aim is to ensure that good forestry practice such as native broadleaf planting and increased shrub cover becomes a statutory requirement. The amendment would be a step in the right direction, but I hope that, in the future, we can have further discussions around the need for environmental impact assessments to consider deep-peat soil and, in particular, its role in sequestering carbon. The UK forestry standard currently has little statutory underpinning.”
“Amendment 40 would provide a new regulation-making power in the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 in relation to sustainable forest management. Members may remember that, at stage 2, I lodged a number of forestry amendments covering three key areas: deer overgrazing, urban afforestation and sustainable forestry. Those amendments were inspired by the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s inquiry into public financial support for tree planting and forestry. Following an offer by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands to discuss, ahead of stage 3, the principle behind that group of amendments and how we might address issues of shared concern, I did not press them to a vote.”
“My position is clear and is on the record: where sanctions are applied, we should ensure that they are enforced, in order to do all that we can to try to avoid fuelling the regimes that, in the Russian example, are causing such horror for the people of Ukraine, and to ensure that people are held to account for their actions.”
“The First Minister: At all times, the Scottish Government has acted to ensure that the rights of individuals were protected and that the rule of law was applied. As I indicated in my statement, there is no legal basis for the Scottish Government or anyone acting on our behalf to board the vessel. There is a practical limitation when it comes to seeking assurances, but we sought assurances from the UK Government and the US Government on the welfare of the individuals involved. On actions in relation to the seizing of the vessel, there is widespread public and parliamentary concern about shadow fleets, which are initiatives for avoiding sanctions.”
“As the First Minister has outlined, for well over two weeks the Marinera and the vessel’s crew were in Scottish waters in Scottish legal jurisdiction. This week, the US Coast Guard has removed the tanker’s captain and first officer from UK waters. The Scottish Government claims to be committed to human rights at home and abroad, but legal experts have already questioned the legality of the Marinera’s seizure, to which the First Minister lent his support. Given the length of time for which the crew of the Marinera were held in Scotland, did the First Minister make any effort to seek guarantees from the US Coast Guard that it would uphold the human rights of those sailors who were taken out of UK waters?”
“Although I understand that there is no intention at this time for that function to be carried out by anyone other than Environmental Standards Scotland, it is important that we, as a responsible and forward-looking Parliament, future proof the power. The restrictions seek to place appropriate limits on the powers of any future Government by ensuring that the crucial independent review body function may be carried out only by an independent public body. I put on the record my thanks to Scottish Government officials for working constructively with me on the wording of amendment 70, and my thanks to the legislation team for their support on amendments 46 and 47. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s response, particularly with regard to amendments 46 and 47, and I urge all members to support all my amendments in the group.”
“Instead, I have worked on them to remove the phrasing that was highlighted and I have brought them back at stage 3, where I hope to receive Scottish Government support for them. Amendment 70 addresses some of the concerns that I expressed at stage 2 about ensuring that, if there is a need for a new independent review body to be appointed to monitor the Scottish Government’s progress on targets, appropriate safeguards are in place. Accordingly, amendment 70 seeks to add some additional qualifications to the power in proposed new section 2G(4) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, so that any new body must be an independent public body or office-holder.”
“The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy stated: “I understand why Ms Villalba lodged amendments 19 and 20, but I am concerned that they would have the effect of narrowing the target topic by restricting it to habitats of conservation importance ... The term “conservation importance”, which is used in the amendments, would limit the scope of habitats in that target topic and, in turn, the available set of indicators that could be used to set targets against. On that basis, I ask the committee not to agree to amendments 19 and 20.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 19 November 2025; c 16.] I therefore did not move those amendments at stage 2.”
“I have three amendments in the group. Amendments 46 and 47 seek to separate the target topic of habitat condition and habitat extent into two distinct topics. I am concerned that the bill allows for one or the other to be sufficient to meet a target, rather than requiring both to be included. That would mean that the condition of a habitat could decline while the extent grows or that the extent could shrink while the condition improves, and those situations would still satisfy the target. I lodged similar amendments at stage 2, which the Government could not support due to the inclusion of the phrase “conservation importance”.”
“We must make the future farming investment scheme fit for purpose and fit for the future. That is possible, clearly, but the Scottish Government can and should go further. It could investigate the problems with the 3-hectare minimum threshold for agricultural subsidies so that all active land workers can make a decent living, regardless of scale, and so that we can boost home-grown short supply chain food security. By prioritising nature- friendly and regenerative farming, the agriculture sector can lead the way in mainstreaming environmental and biodiversity action. 17:24”
“The SNP Government appears to be content to let big agribusiness reign at the expense of smallholders, islanders and young entrants. So far, the SNP has failed to support crofters and small producers in rural communities, and the millions of pounds given to big agriculture through the future farming investment scheme is only the latest in a long line of botched farming policies from the SNP, which repeatedly seeks to give financial handouts to large-scale industrial agriculture at the expense of smallholders and crofters. Just recently, under proposals on fruit and veg, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity wanted to limit funding to just three producers, which would have excluded small growers and crofters. There is still time to change course.”
“For the Inverurie and district ward in the north-east, fewer than 28 per cent of initial applicants received anything at all. Clearly, something has gone very wrong with the scheme. Today’s debate is not about which geographical region is most deserving of the funding, nor is it about litigating failures of the scheme for the sake of it. What the motion quite reasonably calls for, which Labour supports, is for the Scottish Government to publish its review of the future farming investment scheme and provide further clarity on how the scheme’s funding was allocated. As it stands, the mishandling of the scheme appears to be systematic instead of simply teething problems, as one member described it. It is an example of the Scottish National Party’s systematic approach to rural and island farming communities across Scotland.”
“Jim Fairlie: On Mercedes Villalba’s point about big landholders, does she not recognise that big landholders in arable places have every bit as much to add to our biodiversity targets and the other targets that are part of the scheme, if not more, given the scale that they work on? That is vital to ensuring that Scotland is a leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture. Mercedes Villalba: I thank the minister for his intervention, but, as the motion for debate points out, although, in theory, the scheme “was targeted towards islanders, new entrants, young farmers and tenant farmers”, in practice, it has failed to deliver for small farmers. In some areas, 93.9 per cent of applicants are rejected in the first place as irregular, without so much as an assessment.”
“In that context, it is hard to understand why the vast majority of the scheme has been allowed to go to big agricultural landowners and megafarms, or why the majority of the fund is going to parts of Scotland where land is favourable, with only a fraction going to less favourable areas. It means that the scheme looks increasingly like a missed opportunity to rethink where our farming funding should be going. In contrast, Scottish Labour believes that more should be going to smallholders, crofters, land workers and regenerative farmers, and to support for small and local businesses.”
“Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—I am grateful for the opportunity to take part remotely this evening. I congratulate Liam McArthur on securing cross-party support for his motion and thank him for bringing the debate to the chamber. I start my contribution for Labour by paying tribute to the thousands of land workers, crofters and farmers, both in the North East Scotland region and across Scotland, who already do an immense amount to put food on our tables and to care for our natural environment and biodiversity. Let us remember what the stated objectives of the future farming investment scheme were: to improve sustainability, to restore and enhance the environment, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate the effects of climate breakdown.”
“The regeneration of Aberdeen’s Union Street has been hindered by poor planning from the start—an issue compounded by the outsourcing of the work by the Scottish National Party-led Aberdeen City Council. That resulted in the closure of numerous shops and small businesses and caused substantial disruption to the city centre, community and nightlife. What representations has the Deputy First Minister had from Aberdeen’s SNP council leaders about any support that could be offered to them to get that city centre regeneration off the ground? Kate Forbes: The member will be aware of the support that we have provided, including financial support. I am a big believer in empowering local government, and any decisions that are taken by local government are for it, rather than for the Scottish Government. Local Government Funding 4.”
“I also point out that, as I have stated in the chamber, including in response to Ariane Burgess, I am absolutely committed to small producers, who are a vital part of the rural economy working in Scotland. We have the small producers pilot fund and we are determined to do more for small producers as we go forward. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Very briefly,”
“Vast amounts of money awarded under the future farming investment scheme have been hoovered up by large agricultural landowners and mega farms—the kind of wealthy farms that can afford to use deer fencing, leaving smaller, less wealthy farms that cannot afford it even more vulnerable to deer overgrazing. Given that two aims of the future farm policy are improving business efficiency and sustainability and protecting and restoring the natural environment, will the minister assure us that priority under the scheme will be given to farmers— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister. Mercedes Villalba: —who engage in sustainable deer management solutions? Jim Fairlie: Again, we are back to the FFIS. I need to point out that £21.5 million of extra funding was invested in rural Scotland by putting that scheme in place.”
“Those markets include not only North America but the European Union, and this Government continues to back a return to the common market.”
“Kate Forbes: I reject much of that characterisation of the Scottish economy, and I certainly reject any suggestion that the First Minister is under any pressure but that from the voters who have democratically elected the Scottish Government to ensure that Scotland’s economy is growing and prosperous and that we are able to support workers across the country. The initial question was all about exports, which is the direct polar opposite to a question about foreign direct investment. We have made clear that we are supporting Scottish exporters. We are an island nation and are reliant on ensuring that the goods and services that are produced to such a high standard here in Scotland reach markets across the world.”
“According to research from the Common Wealth think tank, Scotland has one of the most foreign-owned economies in Europe. Dependence on overseas direct investment not only bleeds Scotland of the wealth required to fund our public services but pressures Scottish politicians, such as our First Minister, to appease foreign capital by lowering taxes, weakening workers’ rights and eroding environmental standards. Such reliance leaves Scotland vulnerable to dramatic geopolitical change, such as Trump’s latest tariffs. Given that threat, does the Deputy First Minister agree that what Scotland needs is not further private foreign ownership but a strong domestic industrial strategy?”
“It is an important step forward in the global effort to tackle the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss and in the shared stewardship of our marine environment. Standing Order Rule Changes (Lodging Deadlines for Public Bills)”
“I place on record my thanks for the committees’ careful consideration and understanding over the past three months, and I reassure members that my ministerial colleagues and I continue to raise those issues with the UK Government and to press for better and earlier engagement on UK bills with devolved impacts. Regarding Edward Mountain’s suggestion, I imagine that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee or the next Government might want to discuss that more widely with the UK Government, although how well that will go remains to be seen, because we have seen this happen quite a few times. For now, I am proud that we can be part of an important agreement for the world’s oceans.”
“We have responded to questions, given evidence and proactively provided updates when possible, including my update over the festive recess to advise members that negotiations were over and that we had secured the concurrent powers that we needed. We provided as much information as we could, while also preserving the right for some private space for on-going and constantly evolving intergovernmental negotiations. I recognise that that has been frustrating for the committees involved, but it was important to have a private Government-to-Government space for those negotiations.”
“As I noted earlier, that could not be avoided by the Scottish Government, given that the UK Government’s first draft of the bill was shared with us only just before its introduction and did not account for devolution, leading to the need for us to robustly defend devolution not only on behalf of the Scottish Government, but for Scotland as a nation and for this Parliament. That resulted in the need to reach agreement in a staged way, across all provisions, analysing complex clauses and engaging with the UK Government during the rapid passage of its bill. My officials and I have been in regular contact with the relevant committees to assist their scrutiny as best we can.”
“However, we are not agreeing to this way of managing consent to UK bills, which must not be rushed or put together without thought to devolution. That wastes time, and we will never agree to a bill that tramples over devolution. I am glad that we have reached the resolution that we have, but that has held things up. I understand the challenges for the UK Government in grappling with a complex bill within a difficult timescale, and I am fully committed to partnership working to make it effective, but I remain frustrated that we have had to work in this way. I share the profound disappointment that our parliamentary committees have not had the appropriate time in which to scrutinise the Government’s position across all clauses of the bill.”
“17:05 Gillian Martin: Given some of the comments that have been made about the other signatories to the bill, it might be useful to say that there are 145 signatories to the BBNJ agreement, including the European Union and the United States of America, and that 81 parties have so far ratified that agreement, including Ireland, France, Denmark, Norway, Brazil and China, with many more expected to do so and the UK due to ratify it on Saturday 17 January. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate and have recommended consent to the relevant provisions in the bill. I make it clear that agreeing to the motion is an agreement to the effect of the bill and to Scotland playing its full part in implementing and managing it.”
“By strictly regulating bottom trawling in areas beyond national jurisdictions— which are, as I said, areas that for the most part have no environmental protection—the bill will have a hugely positive impact on marine life and will strengthen fish stocks in Scottish waters. The cross-party consensus in support of the legislation is heartening and welcome. However, I take on board the comments by the cabinet secretary and the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee regarding the need for intergovernmental and interparliamentary work. I make clear my support for open and honest communication at all levels in the interests of democracy and accountability, but I urge all members to support the LCM tonight.”
“Members will be aware that I have repeatedly raised the issue of the impact of bottom trawling on marine environments and have done so both in the chamber and with the cabinet secretary. That practice is damaging and destructive to both the marine environment and marine life but continues because it is an efficient way to catch bottom- dwelling species such as cod, haddock and shrimp. In common with a number of other practices that I have raised here, bottom trawling continues, despite being wildly destructive to the environment, because it delivers vast profit for a few vested interests.”
“The bill is ambitious in that it requires environmental impact assessments for activities that might impact marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Edward Mountain: One of the questions that was asked at the committee was about how the legislation is going to be enforced. If I remember rightly, about 30 countries have signed up to it, but a lot more countries around the world have not. Could the member allude to how enforcement will be carried out? Mercedes Villalba: Edward Mountain makes an important point. It is incumbent on all of us to keep campaigning and encouraging as many member states as possible to sign up so that we can have that international working, which is what is needed, because the ocean is common to us all.”
“As highlighted by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, just 1 per cent of waters beyond national jurisdictions are under environmental protection, which means that our marine environment is particularly vulnerable to degradation by pollution, unsustainable fishing practices and exploitation for profit. All countries have a right to fishing, shipping and research in marine areas beyond their national jurisdiction, which means that all countries have a responsibility to protect those areas. With the bill, the UK Labour Government is stepping up to our responsibility. The bill will enable the UK to enforce compliance with area-based management tools in international waters. The most prominent of those tools is, of course, marine protected areas.”
“Marine environmental and biodiversity protection is a worldwide challenge in which boundaries and borders have no relevance, which is why it is so important that the UK plays its part in protecting biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction and honours its international commitments. The bill is a key part of those commitments, particularly in how it supports our duty of climate action. It is our obligation to other countries, to future generations and to those who are feeling the effects of climate change in the here and now to protect our oceans as a vital source of food, oxygen and carbon storage. That obligation prompted the UK to sign up to the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement, and it is that obligation that makes the Labour Government so committed to the agreement’s objectives.”
“My constituents want a Scottish Fire and Rescue Service that is properly funded and well resourced to face the risks that climate and environment breakdown are causing. However, if the past two decades are any indication, it is clear that they will not get that from this minister or this SNP Government. 13:24”
“Further cuts will, therefore, surely risk lives, because neglect and lack of investment leave the SFRS unable to implement best practice in reducing cancer and other disease risks that disproportionately affect firefighters. At every opportunity, the SNP Government has chosen quick cuts to balance a broken budget over the lives of workers. That has happened against our interest, against the public’s interest and against the will of us all, because the public do not support these cuts. The public do not support the changes that the SFRS has put forward; they do not want to see any reduction in services; and, most of all, they do not want their local fire stations, such as Balmossie, shut down.”
“Does she seriously believe that they will leave anyone in North East Scotland safer? My constituents need and deserve a fire and rescue service that can meet the challenge that we face from increased wild fires, flooding and extreme weather. Instead, under the SNP, we have had two decades of managed decline of our public services; reductions in the number of front-line firefighters; exposure to occupational hazards; and inadequate training equipment. Under the SNP, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has seen a real-terms resource budget cut of tens of millions of pounds. Those cuts mean that much of the estate and the equipment are now unfit for the service.”
“That was played down at the time as a short-term measure by both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, but, three years later, we still have no resolution to the downgrading of the service at Kingsway east. Now, with the current proposals on the table, we face the same dangerous situation at Balmossie. That will result in slower response times and a greater risk to life and to the community. The community in Monifieth and Broughty Ferry feels—rightly—that the battle has already been fought and won once before, when previous attempts to close Balmossie were overturned as a result of sustained public pressure led by the Fire Brigades Union. Yet, once again, the service is under threat. I therefore ask the minister today how she can defend these brutal cuts.”
“I begin by reiterating my support for the motion and my gratitude to the thousands of firefighters and support staff who keep my constituents, and all of us, safe. Securing meaningful and sustained funding for the fire service is a crucial issue for the North East Scotland region that I represent, particularly in Monifieth and Broughty Ferry, which—as Maggie Chapman mentioned—are served by Balmossie fire and ambulance station. Like many communities across Scotland, Monifieth and Broughty Ferry have been impacted by an increasing centralisation of powers and services of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and by almost two decades of continued austerity and underfunding from the SNP Government. In 2023, stretched budget funding resulted in one appliance at Kingsway east station in Dundee being removed.”
“The First Minister has said that he cannot see how international law has been respected by the United States in its military intervention in Venezuela, and has said that the “international community must now ensure that de- escalation, diplomacy and democracy” follow. Although defence is a matter that is reserved to the United Kingdom Government, Wick John O’Groats airport is owned by the Scottish Government, so reports that it is being used to support US military operations in relation to Venezuela are alarming. Was the First Minister made aware of the intention to use the airport to support yesterday’s action? Given his expressed views, what assurance can he give to my constituents in the north-east that their Scottish Government-owned infrastructure is not being used as a staging post to violate international law?”
“The second point is that we have taken decisions that will enable the development of the supply chain with very significant economic opportunities for Scotland. However, we need the United Kingdom Government to ensure that grid connections will be delivered in a fashion that meets the needs of the industry in Scotland. Finally, I could not agree with Mercedes Villalba more that the energy wealth of Scotland should benefit the people of Scotland. That is why we need Scottish independence. The Presiding Officer: We move to constituency and general supplementary questions. Concise questions and responses will enable more members to put a question.”
“As the First Minister just said, Scotland is an energy-rich nation, so surely revenues from our natural resources should benefit us all, yet the ScotWind auction round massively undervalued Scotland’s offshore energy resources by setting a bid ceiling. Similar auctions held at the same time raised 20 to 40 times the amount per megawatt capacity than ScotWind did. Does the First Minister accept that setting a bid ceiling was a mistake? What assurance can he offer my constituents in the north-east that that mistake will not be repeated? The First Minister: I say to Mercedes Villalba that she is not comparing like for like in the conditions of the projects that were taken forward in the different leasing rounds. That is the first point.”
“If we do not accept the nature of that spirit and its fragility, and if we do not recognise the importance of our speaking often and speaking up about those things, we will gradually strangle the lifeblood of our economy. That has to start in schools, colleges and universities. Across our society, we must make it easier for people to start businesses. We must relegate the risk-averse fear of failure to something else. I am being told to sit down, so I will sit down. 18:15”
“Christine Grahame: I am aware that other Conservative members have referred to the body blow caused by the increase in employer national insurance contributions. If we add to that energy and supply costs, the blame can be laid at the door of the Labour Government at Westminster. Stephen Kerr: The reality is that the parties on the left all believe in the policy of increasing taxation, growing the size of the state and having more and more Government interference, but all of that strangles the vital spark of our economy, which is the spirit of entrepreneurship and enterprise. That is the spirit that drives someone to get up in the morning with an idea and to go out to work to make it a reality and to find customers to sell goods and services to.”
“Does the member also recognise that one part of the culture that people come from is the public services that we all rely on, including roads, street lighting, street cleaning, schools and healthcare, all of which rely on taxation, and that we need both? Stephen Kerr: There will come a point when people of Mercedes Villalba’s persuasion will kill the goose that lays the golden egg. We do depend on businesses as a source of taxation, but, if we want great public services in Scotland, as the Labour party claims it does, we have to stop taxing and regulating small businesses to the point of near death. That is what we see being called for by the parties of the left. Christine Grahame: Will the member take an intervention? Stephen Kerr: I will give way. I had meant to sit down by now, but I will give way.”
“The Scottish Government has maintained direct support, voluntary coupled support and LFASS payments, and it has provided a number of schemes to ensure that we protect farmers in Scotland, unlike that lot on the Labour benches or that lot on the Conservative benches. Health and Social Care The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to questions on the health and social care portfolio. I advise members that there is a lot of interest in asking supplementary questions. If I am to get through them all, I will need brevity in questions and responses. Loneliness (Health Impacts) 1.”