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 3 of 6.
“Jim Fairlie: As I said to Mercedes Villalba previously, all those issues are being discussed and considered in the round as we take our systems forward. I take on board the point that we must give farmers the tools that they need and the certainty that they require. Unfortunately, no certainty has been provided by the United Kingdom Government, which has caused problems through its inheritance tax changes, has not done anything to change the systems down south, has Barnettised the farming fund for Scotland and has taken away ring fencing. Therefore, I am afraid that under no circumstances can we take any lessons from the Labour Party on how to support farmers in Scotland.”
“Farmers in the north-east have expressed concern that the Scottish Government is dragging its feet in reforming and rebasing agricultural support, such as that provided through the future farming investment scheme and the less favoured area support scheme. That means that young farmers are being cheated out of a fair deal and that small-scale, environmentally friendly and regenerative farming is being prevented from taking place in less favoured areas. Recently, I asked the minister whether future support for less favoured areas will be based on contemporary data or historical data, but I did not get an answer, so I will ask the question again. Will he ensure that future support is based on up-to-date information and data?”
“It can be very difficult to watch someone not be able to find the words or to see another person question their intelligence or ability. Others have highlighted the issues that we hope that the minister will respond to, so I will finish on a point that I often raise in the chamber, which is health inequalities. Research has shown that people who live in Scotland’s most deprived areas are more likely to die in their first year following a stroke than those in the less deprived areas, and that they are much less likely to receive the appropriate recommended treatments. I do not have time to go over that, but it is an important point to raise, and I hope that others will agree with me on it. I thank members for their speeches and Rona Mackay for bringing the issue to the chamber. 18:29”
“I am grateful to my constituents who volunteer at Speakability Tayside, who contacted me ahead of tonight’s debate. Does Ms Mochan agree that something that we can all do to support people with language disabilities, such as those she has outlined, is to undertake the free one-hour online training that is being developed by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists? Carol Mochan: I absolutely agree with the member. I always take every opportunity to promote training, particularly from allied health professionals—Eileen Smith and I were in that category. The loss of language has a significant impact on a person’s life, but this evening it is important to mention the impact on family members’ lives.”
“However, would it not be great if the £11 billion that has gone to the Exchequer as a result of the EPL was ring fenced for decarbonising our gas supply? Would it not be great if that went into just transition? Would it not be great if it brought forward a great deal of investment in low-carbon opportunities, which would help the just transition? Frankly, I do not know where that £11 billion is going. Until we have details on that, maybe we are all a bit in the dark about what the EPL is actually doing, other than destroying jobs in the north-east, because it is a tax on the people and the sector in the north-east of Scotland. Pedestrian Safety Improvements 6.”
“Since its introduction, the energy profits levy has raised more than £11 billion for the public purse and is forecast to raise a further £11 billion by 2030, redistributing excessive profits from energy giants to those struggling in fuel poverty, including in the north-east region. Does the minister not agree with Great British Energy’s founding premise that “the ... people should have a right to own and benefit from our natural resources”? Will she not join me in welcoming the launch of GB Energy’s £1 billion supply chain initiative—which is called energy, engineered in the UK—to grow the domestic supply chain and create jobs in Scotland? Gillian Martin: Mercedes Villalba might be a cheerleader for GB Energy. Fair play to her—if she wants to get behind what GB Energy is doing, that is absolutely her right.”
“Seven prisoners who are in their second month on hunger strike are now at risk of death due to their deteriorating health. They are part of a larger group of political prisoners who are being held under special terrorism conditions due to alleged association with the proscribed group Palestine Action. I oppose the ban on Palestine Action, I support those who have protested against the ban and I add my voice to the call for their immediate bail while awaiting trial. On behalf of my constituents in the North East Scotland region who care deeply about the issue, will the First Minister join me in opposing any curtailing of human rights and the intimidation, discrimination and victimisation of those who oppose genocide?”
“The primary issue, however, is that jobs are being lost in the north- east—largely because of the energy profits levy— at a faster rate than new ones are being created through renewables and particularly offshore wind. Some clear policy levers could be deployed to shift that balance. We encourage the UK Government to move faster when it comes to things such as auction rounds and grid connectivity to accelerate the roll-out of offshore wind. At the same time, the UK Government should, as a matter of urgency, replace the energy profits levy, which the UK Government itself accepts is unjust and unfair. “A Trading Nation” 4.”
“Modelling by Uplift shows how new oil and gas licensing does not and cannot lead to new jobs in the north-east because, over the past decade, hundreds of new licences were awarded, but jobs in the sector still halved. What is the Scottish Government doing to support Labour- founded Great British Energy to become the UK’s energy champion, to accelerate the deployment of clean energy technologies that benefit us all and to redress deindustrialisation in the north-east region? Kate Forbes: Let me be clear that we are working collaboratively with GB Energy and we appreciate the work that it is doing, particularly in collaboration with, for example, the Scottish National Investment Bank.”
“Jenny Gilruth: I very much agree with the sentiment of Mercedes Villalba’s question, although I know that she was slightly cut short in asking it. Such protests disrupt education and our communities, and intimidate our educators and children and young people. There can be no place for that in Scotland’s schools. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I suggest that Mercedes Villalba was not cut short. That concludes portfolio questions. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow the front-bench teams to change. Widening Access to Higher Education”
“Seaton primary school in my region has been the target of anti-migrant disruption twice in the past week alone. Successive Governments have allowed the poor to get poorer while the rich get richer. However, once again, it is migrants who are being blamed. Does the minister agree that those far-right protests disrupt not just education but our whole communities by sowing division? Is it not the case that the real solution to poverty, homelessness and unemployment is ending the gross inequality between us and the billionaires— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Cabinet secretary. Mercedes Villalba: —and not attacking our hard-working friends and neighbours? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Cabinet secretary.”
“Last week, fossil fuel giant Shell UK was fined more than £500,000 after pleading guilty to two offences following a Health and Safety Executive investigation into its Brent Charlie platform. That was a potentially catastrophic incident that put the lives of more than 175 offshore workers at risk due to negligence and penny pinching by Shell. Does the First Minister agree that such behaviour from Shell is wholly unacceptable and that offshore worker health and safety must be paramount to our energy transition, if that transition is to be in any way just?”
“In particular, I would like to hear about progress on any local support in people’s home health boards so that they do not have to travel outwith their health board area, and ask her to acknowledge that the scale of the problem warrants urgent action from the Government. I end with a final quote from my constituent: “Perhaps nothing will come of it, but at least they will know we are not sitting quiet any longer.” 19:06”
“Although she confirmed that the Scottish Government’s on-going commitment to improving access to and delivery of NHS gender identity services, that does not help my constituent, who has been waiting for more than five years. It is clear that something in the system is not working. As Patrick Harvie said, the issue is not just in gender identity healthcare—hundreds of thousands of Scots are stuck on waiting lists on the Government’s watch. It is possible to bring down waiting lists, but we need the Government to get a grip. I ask the minister, in her closing remarks, to let me know what hope she can offer my constituent that she will not be waiting for 80 years—as referenced in the motion—for an appointment, and to update me on what progress has been made on developing the support that is available for those who are waiting.”
“I raised the matter once again—I contacted Sandyford, which is mentioned in Patrick Harvie’s motion, but it unfortunately could not provide an approximate date. It conceded that it could not comply with the 18-week referral-to-treatment guidance. It also outlined that the gender identity services have been under considerable operational pressure since 2014—so it is not a new issue—but the clinic has also experienced unprecedented demand, which has outstripped its ability to provide appointments in a timely manner. I escalated the case to the minister—she may remember it, but I appreciate that a lot of cases come across her desk.”
“I was told that the provision of gender identity services was being reviewed by the population health directorate of the Scottish Government with the aims of improving waiting times, improving the support that is available to those who were on waiting lists and delivering new models of gender identity healthcare. Finally, in late 2022, my constituent received a first assessment. She was then placed on the medical review waiting list at the Glasgow adult gender service. To fast-forward to summer 2025, my constituent was—five years since she was initially referred— still no further forward on the waiting list. Remembering that she had said to me that she thought that the wait would be “three years minimum and more likely five years”, I realised that it had already been five years and that there was still no end in sight.”
“She said: “I found it necessary to go down the private healthcare route as the NHS waiting times are three years minimum and more likely five years. I thought the only way I’m ever going to get any of my life is to take things into my own hands.” As I said, she decided to go private, but she still tried to pursue healthcare through the NHS—we all have a right to access healthcare free at the point of need. However, she said: “Any time I try to contact them, I get the same reply, which is that I’m on the waiting list and will be contacted when I reach the top, but the list seems to get ever- increasingly longer.” I was shocked to hear that she had been waiting for two years without any indication of when she would reach the top of the waiting list, so I raised that with NHS Tayside.”
“I put on record my thanks to Patrick Harvie for lodging the motion so that we can have this debate in the chamber. I will use my time to raise a constituency case with the minister. I have raised it with her in the past, but it is important to get the details on the record, because they highlight a lot of the issues and concerns that Patrick Harvie raised in his speech. My constituent contacted me in summer 2022. She had already been referred to the adult gender service two years previously, in November 2020, by her GP. She got in touch with me to say that she was in considerable distress—she had had to wait two years and had accrued significant personal costs in pursuing a private alternative.”
“Our public money is being spent on mitigating the environmental damage caused by polluting private companies. We cannot afford to go on like this. It is therefore welcome that NatureScot is exploring the potential to apply the principle of cost recovery in its species licensing review. I have previously asked whether the Scottish Government supports the principle that polluters must themselves pay for the environmental damage that they cause, but the minister did not answer, so I am asking again: does the Scottish Government agree with the polluter pays principle? Jim Fairlie: The member has asked the question before, and I gave her a fairly succinct answer at the time. We will have a report on any review that comes forward and we will bring it to the”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Villalba. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“I wish to take all of them, but I need more succinct questions and answers.”
“I had in mind the ethos that Mercedes Villalba mentions. If the transition is to be just, the wealth that is associated with the generation of energy should go to the people of Scotland who are hosting all the infrastructure. That should be in the form of not just community benefits but equity stakes. Fundamentally, developers should not wait for legislation on that; they should offer opportunities for communities to benefit from the funds that are generated as a result of production. They do not have to wait for Government to tell them to do that. It is the right thing to do and the way to get people on side for their developments. I would say that it is the smart thing to do The Deputy Presiding Officer: A number of members who have pressed their request-to- speak buttons have still not been called.”
“Does the cabinet secretary recognise the considerable long-term benefits that up-front investment from the Scottish Government would bring to renewables development? Will she ensure that the people of Scotland benefit from our common natural resources? Gillian Martin: I found very little to disagree with in Mercedes Villalba’s question. I absolutely stand behind a lot of what she said. ScotWind licences are available, but as licences in other areas for other projects in the future are granted, whether they be onshore or offshore, there will be an opportunity for Governments to take a stake in them. That is the right thing to do. In relation to onshore projects, I point out that, more recently, I have ensured that local communities have first option on repowering opportunities for wind farms on the Forestry and Land Scotland estate.”
“I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. Continued uncertainty and chaotic decision making from private offshore renewables developers are harming workers and communities in the North East Scotland region. The mismanagement of UK oil and gas revenues by the privatised fossil fuel industry means that workers now face an unsure and unjust transition. It is critical that we do not repeat the same mistakes with offshore renewable energy. One of the key recommendations in the Future Economy Scotland report “Rethinking ScotWind: Maximising Scotland’s Offshore Wind Potential” was for the Scottish Government to explore taking public equity stakes in offshore leasing and development.”
“However, that starts with respect for one another during debates. Just today—like every other member, I think—I received a revised and updated code of conduct from the Presiding Officer. This afternoon, I was disappointed to see one member use his speech to make personal attacks on members of other parties and to goad members. I do not think that that serves either our constituents or the issue at hand. I know that the cabinet secretary wanted to intervene, but I am sorry that I have run out of time. I will conclude there. 16:57”
“I have said, and members on the Labour benches have recognised, that the fund has been allocated in a disproportionate way. What I have not heard is any contrition or any acknowledgement that the Scottish Government has let our communities down by not having the foresight that was needed. It is very easy to criticise in hindsight a decision that has been made, but our communities have the right to expect the Scottish Government to have its head in the game. I hope that we will hear from the cabinet secretary in her closing speech how we can work together, given the unanimous support across the Parliament for the fishing industry. I do not think that we will get unanimous results on the motion or amendments, but that does not mean that we cannot continue to discuss the subject and work together outside this debate.”
“Finlay Carson: The member appears to suggest that it serves Scotland right that it asked for the fishing fund to be devolved and it got what it deserved. She suggests that the Scottish Government did not realise that it would be completely unfair. Even Rhoda Grant suggests that it is unfair. Surely the UK Government’s Scotland Office should have realised that it would be totally unfair. Mercedes Villalba: I do not think that anyone is saying what Mr Carson has just said. The point is that, when a fund is devolved, there are procedures in place for that to happen, and it would not be right for the Scotland Office to intervene in intergovernmental negotiations. I see Mr Carson shaking his head. There is definitely a way forward, but I do not think that it serves any of our communities for us to point the finger at one another.”
“My colleagues Rhoda Grant and Carol Mochan noted that the issue of the disproportionate nature of that fund is being raised by Labour MPs. I also heard the cabinet secretary say that she is raising the issue directly with the UK Government and I heard her frustrations about the interministerial group. It is regrettable that so much Scottish Parliament debate time is being spent discussing intergovernmental relations. Finlay Carson: Will the member give way? Mercedes Villalba: I will in a moment. I think that any fishers who are watching the debate want to hear about the practical measures that our parties and Governments will take to support them, so that situation is a shame. Mairi Gougeon: Will the member take an intervention? Mercedes Villalba: I will take Mr Carson’s intervention first.”
“I hope that the Scottish Government will provide debate time for the issues that are not included in its motion but for which it is responsible, so that we can hear more. The cabinet secretary’s opening speech included a lot of detail and was very dense. I will have to go back and read the Official Report to get all the detail, but I do not think that I heard any specific commitment by the Scottish Government to support the processing sector, and I do not know what it intends to do about marine spatial planning. Those crucial issues warrant debate time. Beatrice Wishart pointed out that the fishing and coastal growth fund should not have been devolved without prior agreement to proportionate calculation.”
“That is a real issue and it is right that we debate it, but I would have expected it to be the Scottish Government’s priority to use Scottish Parliament time to discuss and debate issues for which a minister has responsibility. During the debate, we heard from Beatrice Wishart that February this year was the first time in quite a while that the issue of the fishing industry was given debate time in the Scottish Parliament. The Conservative Party used its business time a few weeks ago to deal with the issue, which Tim Eagle pointed out again today. I reiterate the point that has been made by a number of parties, which is that we need parliamentary time for fisheries debates.”
“Unusually, I have not prepared a speech, because I have been asked to close for Labour this evening and wanted to listen to the debate and to speak to the points that have been raised. On that note, it is important to begin with the reason for today’s debate. The Scottish Government lodged a motion supporting Scotland’s fishing industry, but that motion seems to focus solely on the allocation that has been made from the fishing and coastal growth fund— one that is disproportionate to the size and value of Scotland’s fishing industry. I understand why the Scottish Government chose that issue for its debate today, but it is surprising that, after many years of what used to be an annual debate, fishing is only now being debated, and seemingly in response to that issue.”
“The Offshore Solutions Group did a great disservice to the people of Moray and Nairn by saying that it felt scared to come to listen to the concerns. It should be brave enough and bold enough to come along to hear the huge opposition from local fishermen and local communities. If the group will not come to Moray and the Highlands to hear that message, it should listen to the message from the Parliament. Tonight, we can unite behind the Conservative amendment and send the strongest possible signal that the Parliament does not support the plans and that we are on the side of the hundreds of people who attended the public meetings, the thousands who have already registered their objections and the local fishermen who are worried about their future. That is why I ask every party to support our amendment. 16:33”
“They’re not against renewable energy, but it surely can’t come at the cost of destroying traditional fishing grounds and the way of life that has been there for generations?” I could not have put it any better myself. The fishermen who have fished those waters for years and want to see their industry continue for years to come are worried about the proposals. Let us consider who is proposing the Moray Firth FLOW-Park: the Offshore Solutions Group. That group was feart to come to Moray or to listen to people who were invited to Tim Eagle’s public meeting in Nairn, because it said that it felt unsafe. I have been to many meetings in Moray. Not all of them have been particularly positive. They have always been robust but respectful.”
“In her speech last month, Elspeth Macdonald said that the site between Findhorn and Burghead will create massive problems for the local fishing fleet, as it is “positioned directly over established fishing grounds used for decades by inshore vessels that do not have the capacity to fish further afield.” There was no consultation with the industry on the sites before the agreements were signed. Just last month, a local fisherman who spoke to Lewis McBlane, a reporter from The Northern Scot, said that the industry feels “steamrolled” by the lack of consultation on the Moray Firth FLOW-Park. He went on to say that the facility, if it was given the go-ahead, would “decimate” many of the only fishing grounds on the Moray coast that are suitable for the area’s small vessels. He said: “These are the people whose livelihoods are at risk.”
“[Made a request to intervene.] Douglas Ross: I have already taken three interventions, although I did not get any further with them. People will question why the SNP maintains its policy of rejoining the CFP if even its MSPs cannot give one positive reason for doing so. I will focus the rest of my remarks on the Conservative amendment from Tim Eagle, which I welcome. It will send a clear signal that the Parliament opposes the plans for the proposed Moray Firth FLOW-Park. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is clear that the plans will decimate our local fishing sector.”
“The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was an opportunity to challenge the current pattern of land ownership and to create a fairer, more accountable and more democratic system of diversified land ownership. It remains to be seen how much of an impact its provisions will have but, given what was left out of the bill, it seems like yet another missed opportunity from the Scottish Government. 18:37”
“Both examples show how private corporations will always seek private profit before public good, even while claiming that they are acting in the public interest. That is why it was so important to have a forward-facing public-interest assessment of buyers of land in the bill. It is deeply disappointing that, even after months and years of scrutiny, evidence and amendment, the Scottish Government did not accept that. Large-scale and corporate land ownership cannot contribute to action on inequality while its decisions on land ownership and land management remain focused on extracting wealth. Instead, we need land ownership that works for people, not profit.”
“Gresham House is now the second-largest private landowner in Scotland, thanks to 244 separate landholdings across roughly 74,000 hectares. That kind of superscale land ownership will barely be impacted by the bill, however, as only a handful of those 244 fragments are over the 1,000-hectare threshold. That is why I am proud that my amendment to review whether the size of the areas of land included in the bill needs to be reduced was passed yesterday. I look forward to seeing that review take place. The examples of Oxygen Conservation and Gresham House demonstrate the inadequacy of Scotland’s current system and how the Scottish Government’s bill—while welcome—will not go far enough.”
“That is why it is right that, under the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, some large landholdings will be required to produce land management plans to show how they intend to manage and develop the land. I truly hope that those modest changes make a difference. However, because of the Government’s refusal to accept my amendments to lower the threshold and introduce a presumed limit on ownership of 500 hectares, more large landholdings will be left out of the scope of the bill than will be included in it. Instead, the Scottish Government has taken a blinkered approach to ownership and aggregation of landholdings. Concentrated land ownership is a nationwide issue, yet the Scottish Government has refused to take a nationwide approach to aggregate land holdings.”
“Take Oxygen Conservation, whose stated business is supposedly to help fight the climate and biodiversity crises. It has quickly taken ownership of numerous Scottish landholdings and estates. Most recently, it bought up BrewDog’s failed Lost Forest estate, which has taken its total holdings to nearly 20,000 hectares. However, its extractive business model and inadequate community engagement have raised alarm bells among land reform experts. A revenue model that is based on polluting carbon credit sales will not deliver what our land, climate and natural environment so desperately need. Aggressive acquisitions and the quick flipping of land as a portfolio treats one of our most priceless common goods as a cheap commodity to be traded by the wealthiest.”
“It is a great privilege to close this debate for Scottish Labour and to speak alongside my comrades Rhoda Grant and Richard Leonard. I start by paying tribute to everyone who has engaged in the land reform process. Any success in the bill that will diversify land ownership in Scotland is the collective effort of everyone who responded to the consultations, everyone who provided expert advice evidence and everyone who challenged the Scottish Government to make the bill count. That work will continue, because it must. Scotland is now prey to mega lairds, private corporations that buy up land for the benefit of portfolio shareholders and investors. Their accumulation of land, wealth and power is often dressed up as climate friendly or environmentally responsible. Let us be clear: it is not.”
“Environmental groups such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have highlighted the high financial costs for removal of conifer seedlings and seed rain. As things stand, NatureScot and other environmental restoration groups must use already stretched budgets to mitigate the environmental damage that is caused by the negligence of private companies. There is concern that, if the bill does not address that issue, it might unintentionally further embolden big polluters. Does the Scottish Government support the principle that the polluters must pay for the environmental damage that their industry causes? Jim Fairlie: I absolutely understand that there are some concerns about the seeding of conifers, but all those things will be stretched out and discussed as the bill progresses. Path Networks 2.”
“However, I note that we have heard frequently from the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Government requires further evidence to lower the threshold. My hope is therefore that we can agree to amendment 89D to ensure that the review of the provisions includes that crucial point. I will listen carefully to the cabinet secretary’s response to both amendments. If she is minded to support amendment 89D, I will not move amendment 89B. 17:45”
“I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 89B is an amendment to the review amendment lodged by Martin Whitfield and would make an express provision that the review must consider the appropriateness of the land described in each of the part 1 provisions, with particular regard to the size of the areas of land. In effect, it would look at whether the 1,000 hectare threshold was still appropriate. Amendment 89D is a variation on amendment 89B and would require the review to have particular regard to whether the size of the areas of land should be reduced. Members are already familiar with my arguments in favour of lowering the threshold and my attempts to do so in the bill, so I will not repeat myself tonight.”
“According to RSPB research, the financial cost of removal of conifer seedlings and seed rain in flow country peatlands is already in the millions of pounds. A polluter-pays principle would address that directly through the creation of statutory requirements for the proper management of invasive non-native species. Successful implementation would create a robust framework for liability for environmental damage. I want to be clear that Scottish Labour, like others, supports the general principles of the bill. However, if Parliament is serious about reversing the trend of biodiversity loss, we must be clear that the current iteration of the bill needs significant amending. In that way, Scotland can become a true world leader in combating the nature crisis. 16:04”
“Providing public subsidies to damaging commercial conifer forests completely contradicts Scotland’s biodiversity and environment restoration targets. The Scottish Government should reassess subsidies for coniferous commercial tree planting. The ethical and financial responsibility for rectifying harm to the environment should rest on the developers and private companies that cause that harm, through the use of a polluter-pays principle, as touched on by Lorna Slater. It is not just we on the Labour benches who are saying that; groups such as Scottish Environment LINK and the RSPB agree. Current environmental restoration efforts, including ones by NatureScot, are using their already overstretched budgets to mitigate the damage to our natural environment that negligent private companies cause.”
“That fact demonstrates the need for Scotland to tighten its legislation around the 2011 act and to look at reworking exemptions for invasive non-native species. We also need to look at the cost to the public purse of Government subsidies for invasive non- native species such as Sitka spruce, which accounts for 50 per cent of commercial planting in the UK. The destruction of our natural environment to line the pockets of shareholders cannot be allowed to continue. Instead, Scottish Forestry could require that planting schemes include native planting and regeneration and consider the spread of tree seed from non-native invasive species. Actions to consider could include continued monitoring of how seed spread can be reduced and, where necessary, removal of non-native invasive species seedlings.”
“Additionally, when Sitka is planted on peatlands, there is a risk that carbon sequestered by the land can be released. Yet that ecologically destructive species is currently exempt from the provisions of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011—an exemption that is not based on environmental science but is driven by the profit motive in the commercial forestry industry. If I or one of my constituents released Japanese knotweed into the wild, even accidentally, that would be illegal, but private companies are, in effect, allowed to commit widespread acts of ecological vandalism that degrade vast swathes of Scotland’s environment without fear of being so much as fined, all in the name of profit.”
“Particularly important to the debate is how we protect and restore our natural environment and native flora and fauna. The latter are threatened by the devastating impact of invasive non-native species, as Beatrice Wishart highlighted very aptly today. In its 2025 “Inquiry into public financial support for tree planting and forestry”, the Royal Society of Edinburgh highlighted that Scottish Government policy and practice do not go far enough in recognising long-standing problems caused by invasive non-native species. For example, as we have just heard, Sitka spruce, which accounts for 43 per cent of Scotland’s woodlands, is a major threat, because it dries out the peatland ecosystem and outcompetes native species such as—I will probably say this wrong—sphagnum moss, and no, I am not its nature champion.”
“For the bill to meet its goal of reversing biodiversity loss and restoring a healthy, stable ecosystem, it must be amended in several key areas, not least in relation to the issues with part 2 that have been highlighted by Labour members and others today. From what we have heard, if the Government does not lodge serious considered amendments to part 2, there will be proposals to remove that part altogether. Therefore, I hope that the cabinet secretary takes heed. Although we have heard from Tim Eagle and some of his Conservative colleagues their concerns about whether there is a need for the bill, his citing of the failure of previous non-statutory approaches has, I think, made a strong case for bringing forward statutory targets and for part 1 of the bill.”