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 4 of 6.
“I thank all members who have taken part in today’s debate. As my Labour colleagues Sarah Boyack and Rhoda Grant have already made clear, we will support the bill at stage 1 today, because we recognise the issue at the heart of the bill, which is how we protect Scotland’s 90,000 species, 11 per cent of which, as we have heard from Jackie Dunbar, are threatened with extinction. Scotland’s level of biodiversity intactness is in the lowest 15 per cent in the world, and the Scottish Government has failed to meet its environmental targets. In the past decade alone, 43 per cent of Scotland’s species have seen a decline. Biodiversity loss is, of course, a global issue, but I think that we would all agree that Scotland has a moral and ecological duty to be a world leader in reversing that decline.”
“As this is the first division of the stage 3 proceedings, I suspend for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system. 15:58 Meeting suspended. 16:04 On resuming— The Deputy Presiding Officer: We will proceed with the division on amendment 115. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Fergus Ewing: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze, but I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ewing. Your vote will be recorded.”
“That is because of its pivotal role in that community. The situation is the same for all large landowners. If NatureScot can do it, I do not see why we cannot impose the same restriction on all landowners. Just for clarification, with regard to the 500 hectares, it is correct that similar amendments were lodged at stage 2. Those were discussed and, indeed, widely consulted on by Mercedes Villalba when she sought to introduce her own legislation on the issue. Therefore, it is not true to say that the amendments were not consulted on. I press amendment 115. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 115 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Rhoda Grant to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 115. Rhoda Grant: I will wind up quickly. With regard to the public interest test, the aims that are highlighted in amendment 129 are the things that we desperately need for our communities to thrive. Their absence is what leads to depopulation. It is not surprising if a landowner does not understand their importance, but they are a group of things that underpin the need for land reform. They are the things that community landowners do as a matter of course, and we see the difference that that makes with repopulation and economic development. On Mercedes Villalba’s amendments 76 and 76A, NatureScot is rightly looking at who will buy Kinloch castle on Rum and it is putting in place checks and balances to ensure that the right buyer is found.”
“My colleague Michael Matheson has lodged amendment 269, which would place a duty on ministers to issue guidance about the community engagement obligations on landowners. That wider duty would cover the kind of guidance that is being sought by Rhoda Grant’s amendments, but it could also cover guidance on other aspects of the obligations. Because of that, I ask members to reject amendments 115, 233, 129 and 261 and to accept amendment 269, which will be considered as part of a later group. On amendments 43 to 45 from Edward Mountain, the bill as drafted already allows for prohibitions to be lifted where a landowner can evidence financial hardship. That is a proportionate approach that reflects the Government’s support for community ownership. I therefore recommend that members reject amendments 43 to 45.”
“However, I want to highlight that I will support similar amendments that Rhoda Grant has lodged on that, and particularly amendment 187, which is in group 10. Rhoda Grant’s amendments in this group would require all the duties that are listed to be imposed on all landowners, regardless of the type of landholding, when preparing a land management plan. For example, a hill sheep farmer would need to prove that they had regard to securing a greater proportion of community-owned energy when preparing their land management plan. That would not be proportionate, and it would risk plans turning into box-ticking exercises. It is better for requirements to be developed through consultation with those affected and specified in future regulations, rather than being in the bill.”
“I hear from her an acknowledgement that there is a problem with the concentration of land ownership but no tangible commitment to work beyond the bill. Mairi Gougeon: That is not a fair assessment of what has been set out. The measures in the bill are an important step forward. Of course, when we introduce measures, we need to monitor them, see how they are working and capture evidence, which we can build on for the future. We have powers in the bill to modify any provisions. On Rhoda Grant’s amendments 115, 233, 129 and 261, although I agree with the public interest objectives that are listed, regulations are the right place to set out the detail of what will be required under community engagement obligations.”
“Mairi Gougeon: I am sure the member recognises that this has been a long process. The focus has, quite rightly, been on delivering this legislation and the key measures within it. If the bill is passed by Parliament, the next step will be a move to implementation, when we will work to build the evidence that will allow us to take those measures forward in the future. The review provisions in group 12 will be vital to that. Mercedes Villalba: Will the cabinet secretary expand a little further on the threshold or bar for that evidence? I am hearing that, once the bill becomes an act, further evidence will be gathered to see whether something like my proposals can come forward, but the cabinet secretary has not outlined what evidence she needs to gather to meet the threshold to introduce such proposals.”
“That would create a gaping loophole in the provisions, which would not deliver the policy intent set out by Mercedes Villalba or Ariane Burgess. Agreeing to any of those amendments would not strengthen the bill but would wholly undermine it, jeopardising its other policies. Supporting the amendments would be a gift to those who want to maintain the status quo and want the bill to fail, which is why I encourage Mercedes Villalba and Ariane Burgess not to press the amendments but instead to engage with me on how we can build on the foundations laid by the bill. Mercedes Villalba: I will, of course, continue to engage, as I have already done, but I would like to hear the cabinet secretary explain what work she is committing the Scottish Government to and when that work will start.”
“Amendments 15 and 76A attempt to introduce a presumed limit on landownership of 500 hectares. Introducing that at stage 3 without consultation, evidence or any assessment of the impact on forestry, farming or other key sectors would be reckless and risks creating legislation that does not work. For example, the amendments do not consider the other land owned by a buyer and consider only the land in which the buyer has a controlling interest. According to those amendments, if a seller had a controlling interest in more than 500 hectares of land in Scotland, Scottish ministers should allow the transfer only if it meets the requirement set out. However, if that same seller directly owned all the land in the area, or if they owned 10,000 hectares across Scotland, that would not be relevant.”
“We have seen for years that, without those interventions, the concentration of land ownership is getting worse. That is why the interventions are so important and why I hope that members will support the bill. Although I understand the intention behind the amendments in this group from Mercedes Villalba and Ariane Burgess, I regret to say that they do not meet the tests that I have set out. The amendments would result in property transactions automatically being rendered of no effect at any time before or after a transaction takes place if ministers decide that the transfer is not or was not in the public interest. Despite the significance of that, the amendments make no provision for compensation and there is no indication of how the new requirements would operate alongside the lotting provisions already in the bill.”
“Would it not be a better strategy to work with landowners, rather than creating division, animosity, rancour, ill will, tension and conflict that will likely prevent the very aims that we both wish to see being achieved in rural Scotland? Mairi Gougeon: I must disagree with the case made by Fergus Ewing. He is absolutely right that some landowners do fantastic work. I know of some close to me who involve their communities and invite people into their land and who are, ultimately, doing what the measures to be introduced by the bill are intended to achieve. We want to spread more of that good practice and to see all landowners doing that, but whether those activities take place should not be dependent on the good will of the landowner.”
“I believe that land reform is crucial to a fairer Scotland and that it is worth the fight, but we must ensure that we do not make things easy for those who want us to fail and that, when we make proposals, we can be confident that they are supported by evidence, that they will work and that they are proportionate. Fergus Ewing: Rather than creating division, bitterness, expense and bureaucracy with, one suspects, very little consequence if the bill passes in the end, would it not be a far better and more effective strategy to work with landowners, many of whom provide immensely to their areas, even if some do not?”
“I will begin by responding directly to the amendments lodged by Ariane Burgess and Mercedes Villalba. The concentration of land ownership in Scotland is an issue that has been hundreds of years in the making, and the bill will finally give ministers the powers to split up landholdings when that is in the public interest. That is a huge step forward, but it is only the first step. Addressing the inequality in Scotland’s landownership will not be quick or easy, and we can expect that those who currently own vast portions of Scotland’s land will resist that progress at every step.”
“Are they in debt? What is their credit score? Where did they live before? Who else will be living with them? The list goes on and on, yet anyone, anywhere in the world, can buy up as much of Scotland as they like, no questions asked. It does not matter what they will do with it or how their plans would affect their neighbours. It is absurdly unjust. The Scottish Government cannot expect my constituents to believe that rules that apply to them are vitally necessary due diligence, yet no checks can be applied to prospective buyers of land because of property rights. I am calling on the cabinet secretary to do the right thing, to be bold, to take the first step in righting this wrong and to support amendments 74 and 74A today. Mairi Gougeon: I thank members for their contributions so far to the debate on this group.”
“I recognise that the bill now contains reference to the public interest test, but that is a test on the landholding itself rather than a test on landowners. It is the buyer that matters, because of their plans, interests and priorities. Public bodies such as NatureScot have shown that it is possible to sell using a test on the buyer, so we know that it can be done. Scotland’s land is becoming concentrated into ever-fewer hands, so we know that we need to act. What I am proposing today is the most basic of considerations on buyers of large landholdings, because a double standard exists between wealthy landowners and the rest of us. If my constituents want to rent a room or buy a house, there seems to be no end of checks that they must pass to demonstrate that they are suitable tenants or prospective owners. Can they afford it?”
“The interference in property rights that would result from those proposals would require a rational and coherent justification based on evidence. The evidence on which I have proceeded is concerned with the effects of concentration of ownership on communities. There is no rational link between that evidence”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 3 June 2025; c 20.] and a public interest test on a buyer. Having worked with Community Land Scotland on the evidence base on the issue, using research from the Scottish Land Commission, and having made revisions to focus on the public interest connected to community sustainability, I have brought back the amendments today.”
“That followed an investigation into issues that are associated with large-scale and concentrated land ownership in Scotland by the Scottish Land Commission, which found that “harmful concentrations of power in relation to land do exist and appear to be causing significant and long-term damage to the communities affected.” The SLC went on to recommend that a public interest test at the point of transfer of significant landholdings be introduced, but the Scottish Government’s bill included no such test. At stage 2, I lodged amendment 174 to insert a forward- facing public interest test into the bill and amendment 174A to insert a presumed limit on ownership. Unfortunately, at that time, the Scottish Government was not able to support my amendments. The cabinet secretary said: “The amendments are ... not supported by the evidence base ...”
“Amendment 76A seeks to amend that new part by inserting a presumed limit on ownership, the presumption being that a transfer to a buyer who already controls more than 500 hectares would not be in the public interest unless otherwise demonstrated through environmental benefits, community sustainability or other means. Members might remember that I consulted on those issues in my proposed land ownership and public interest (Scotland) bill earlier in this parliamentary session.”
“I thank Community Land Scotland, which is here today, and the Scottish Parliament legislation team for their support in drafting my amendments in this group. I also thank everyone out there who is engaged with the land reform process. Amendment 76 seeks to insert proposed new part 2B to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill 2003, which would apply a public interest test to a proposed new buyer in relation to transfers of large landholdings. It would work by requiring the Scottish ministers to have regard to the identity and management proposals of the buyer, including how much land they already control and any plans they have for the land.”
“The Scottish Government can and must do more to encourage a society- wide modal shift from road to rail for passengers and freight, to keep pace with the ambitious carbon budgets and emissions reduction targets. We must accelerate the electrification and decarbonisation of Scotland’s railways. Home heating, agriculture and transport are devolved areas, so we have the power here, in Scotland, to make a change for the better. What we need, whether through climate targets or carbon budgets, is action. My constituents need a Government that will tackle the issue head on— not after the election, not in five years’ time, but right here, right now, before it is too late. 18:20”
“There can be a farming revolution in which farming enhances nature and we are all better off for it. There is still more that we can do. The nationalisation of ScotRail in 2022 was our chance to make a real difference for Scotland’s energy transition. However, the SNP Government is missing this opportunity and throwing away a chance to decarbonise transport while creating a reliable, affordable public service. Fiona Hyslop: Will Mercedes Villalba give way on that point? Mercedes Villalba: I am afraid that I do not have time. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is just winding up. Mercedes Villalba: Labour wants a clean, green electrified rail network that drives down emissions and gets people out of traffic and pollution and into work.”
“However, there is another way: a national retrofit plan to reduce our reliance on imported gas and create thousands of well-paid, unionised jobs in construction, manufacturing and fitting. Those builders, plumbers and joiners would all be trained and deployed here, in Scotland. That is not all. The second-largest emitting sector, with almost 20 per cent of Scotland’s emissions, is agriculture. Food production is absolutely essential to our nation and to my region, but it does not have to cost the earth. It is possible to balance the land needs of crops, livestock and wildlife and reap the benefits of all of those by promoting climate and nature-friendly farming, by breaking up land monopolies and by supporting smallholdings, tenant farms and crofts.”
“That is why we are debating the setting of carbon budgets today. However, with scant detail and without much of a plan from the SNP, the carbon budgets will be cold comfort to those in my region who are at the sharp end of climate change. Domestic and commercial energy use, including heating, accounts for 20 per cent of Scotland’s emissions. Indeed, the UK spends more money on wasted domestic heating than any other country in western Europe. Inefficient boilers combined with poorly insulated walls and roofs cost us a fortune in energy bills. Meanwhile, some rogue operators are going around cashing in by flogging inappropriate so-called insulating solutions that cause havoc in old buildings and lead to damp, mould and costly repairs.”
“On our current trajectory, the planet is heading for life-threatening temperature increases of 2.6°C to 3.1°C by the end of this century. Climate breakdown is already upon us, and my constituents in the north-east are experiencing it in real time—we have prolonged drought, record wildfires and violent storms. The damage and destruction seem only to increase year on year. Yet, it is in this context that the Scottish Government chose to pull its heat in buildings bill, scrap its car-kilometre reduction target and ditch its legally binding target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Why on earth has it done that, and why at a time like this? It was not because the Government had to, and it was not because the reduction could not be done; it was because of the Government’s own inaction, year after year, for 18 long years.”
“As one constituent wrote to me, “We do not elect ministers to be silent functionaries; we elect them to be strong voices, especially when critical public safety issues are on the line.” I am proud to stand with local firefighters, and I urge all members to join us and vote down the SNP amendment tonight and support Labour’s motion in full. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. I advise members that there is no time in hand. 16:50”
“Instead, the SNP has tabled a wrecking amendment that rewrites our motion and removes any recognition of the damage that its cuts have caused, the danger that further station closures could cause and the responsibility that it has as the governing party to protect our public services. I will not vote for the SNP’s amendment, just as I do not support the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s disastrous proposals to downgrade or even close Balmossie fire station in Dundee. I am not the only one who is opposed to it. The council is opposed to it, the firefighters are opposed to it and, most important, the people of the area are opposed to it, because it is dangerous and because it creates an unacceptable risk to people and communities.”
“I commend my comrade Katy Clark for introducing Labour’s motion on protecting Scotland’s fire service. Our motion recognises the Fire Brigades Union’s cuts leave scars campaign, which was set up in 2023 in response to a decade of underfunding by this Scottish Government. As a result of those cuts, call handling times have increased, response times have increased and the risk to lives has increased. Unbelievably, the Scottish Government’s response to that has been to support the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s latest plans to close 13 stations, permanently withdraw 10 firefighting appliances and no doubt further cut firefighter numbers. I am proud that Scottish Labour has used our debate time today to highlight this issue. However, is it not pitiful that the Scottish Government has not brought forward the issue in Government time?”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. There will be a very short pause before we move on to the next portfolio to allow front- bench teams to quickly change positions. Health and Social Care NHS Grampian (Meetings) 1.”
“Thanks to the campaigning efforts of the local community, the sale of Kinloch castle on the Isle of Rum by NatureScot will be subject to a public interest test that will be applied to potential buyers. The Scottish Government’s Kinloch castle study found that the most important aspects of a sale were long-term contribution to the community, as well as to nature, sustainability, culture and the local economy. Given that study and the tenacity of the people of Rum, does it not make sense to include in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill a public interest test for the buyers in land transactions? Jim Fairlie: As I said, the bill is currently going through Parliament, and I am quite sure that Mercedes Villalba will make that point to the cabinet secretary.”
“Night-time Public Transport Connections 6.”
“Invasive non-native species are one of the key drivers of biodiversity loss in Scotland, including through the spread of invasive tree seed to adjoining land such as peatland. Research from the Royal Society of Edinburgh into public subsidies for tree planting and forestry shows that large, dense stands of non-native conifers, such as Sitka spruce, are having an adverse effect on biodiversity. What consideration has the cabinet secretary given to the recommendations in the RSE report to discontinue subsidies for commercial non-native conifer planting? Gillian Martin: With regard to woodland planting, I will have to defer to my colleagues in the rural affairs portfolio. However, the responsibility for action on invasive non-native species lies with me, and Mercedes Villalba knows that the matter has my full attention.”
“We have brought in legislation to create boundaries—buffer zones—around clinics to prevent people who are accessing services from being harassed. What consideration has the Government given to establishing some kind of boundaries around residential dwellings to prevent people from being harassed in their homes? Siobhian Brown: The right to free speech and protest is at the heart of a healthy democracy and the Scottish Government is committed to upholding that right, but it understands the distress that the protests are causing to residents across asylum accommodation. Creating buffer zones similar to those that have been introduced in relation to abortion clinics would require new legislation. We have no current plans to do that, but we will continue to monitor the situation. General Practice Service Capacity (NHS Grampian) 6.”
“We have seen anything but stabilisation in the months since the end of March. We have seen rents being increased by up to almost 90 per cent. That is not stabilisation. It makes those rents grossly unaffordable and it means that, when rent control areas come in, they will already be unaffordable in some places. The cabinet secretary also referred to rent adjudication and tribunals. That requires tenants to know that that is a possible route, and we still do not have clarity on exactly how renters will get that information. It is important that we have the ability to introduce special rent control areas and to reintroduce the transitional protections to ensure that renters do not pay the price for the fact that the bill has been so woefully delayed. I press amendment 1.”
“As the cabinet secretary agreed in response to Mercedes Villalba’s question, the cost of living crisis still exists. That is why we need provisions, in very clearly defined and time-limited circumstances, to reintroduce special rent controls that bring rents down. The formula in the bill means that rents will always increase more quickly than inflation. That will not make rents more affordable in the long term. Rents will increase at a greater rate than people’s wages, and a greater rate than people’s ability to pay. The special rent control area provisions would mean that we could deal with that in specific, limited and time-constrained circumstances. On transitional protections, the cabinet secretary has said that it is the Scottish Government’s intent to stabilise rents.”
“We have listened to the views of landlords, tenants and investors in developing proposals for longer-term rent control. I believe that the focus should remain on delivering that, and that there is a risk that a change to that could undermine the progress that we are making. I also want to be clear that we are already taking action to prevent a rent officer or tribunal from setting a rent above that proposed by the landlord. That concern has been shared with us, and it is being addressed in the bill. That is another reason why I cannot support the amendments in this group, and I urge members not to do so. Maggie Chapman: This Parliament brought in emergency rent controls to provide tenants with protections during the cost of living crisis.”
“Although I appreciate that it would be up to the Scottish ministers to set out the detail of those regulations, as I said, the rationale that supported the development of the temporary changes no longer applies. We are no longer in that transitionary period. As I have stated and reiterate, those measures were temporary. There has been no engagement with the wider sector about reintroducing them, which might have wider legal implications. Maggie Chapman’s amendments, if they were agreed to, would cause further concerns about the negative impact on the supply of rented housing. In a housing emergency, I certainly could not support that, and I do not think that our housing system could withstand it. I am sorry—I missed a spot, Presiding Officer; forgive me.”
“For all the reasons that I have set out, I cannot support Maggie Chapman’s amendments, but I assure her that the existing mechanism for adjudicating rent increases under the 2016 act, which is based on an open market rent, will continue to operate as intended, thereby protecting tenants from unreasonable rent increases. I turn quickly to amendment 120, which suggests an alternative approach to transitional rent control measures. Although those measures were necessary as part of the process of exiting previous emergency measures, I cannot support replicating them and placing further temporary controls on rent, especially when we are trying to bring forward a long-term system.”
“I thought that I heard the cabinet secretary say that the circumstances under which the emergency rent freeze came into force no longer apply, but that came into force because of the cost of living crisis. Is the cabinet secretary saying that the cost of living crisis has now passed? Màiri McAllan: No, I am absolutely not saying that. I was referring to the fact that the process was developed specifically to support the transition away from the emergency rent cap. Those are the circumstances that I was suggesting no longer apply. I am absolutely aware that the cost of living crisis continues and, in many cases, is getting worse, not least because of rising energy costs.”
“Mairi Gougeon: As the member will be aware, and as we have discussed at length during stage 2 consideration of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, we have looked at introducing wording that would reference a public interest test in a way that is ultimately workable and that would achieve the aims that we have set out in the bill. I look forward to continuing to engage with Mercedes Villalba and members across the chamber as we look to strengthen the bill and work on amendments ahead of stage 3. Sustainable Farming and Food Production 3.”
“We have just heard from the cabinet secretary that Forestry and Land Scotland purchased Glen Prosen for the purposes of nature recovery, climate resilience and public health and wellbeing activities, which are clearly in the public interest. When I consulted on my proposed land ownership and public interest bill, I found widespread support for a public interest test on transfers of large landholdings. Will the cabinet secretary support the inclusion of a public interest test in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill ahead of stage 3?”
“Actually, the types of land that are probably more suitable for data centres are in urban environments, particularly industrial land that perhaps is not in use at all at the moment. I agree that Scotland’s decisions on energy should be in Scotland’s hands, and that they should include Scotland’s people. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I remind members that supplementary questions need to relate to the original substantive question. Commuter Trains (Fife) 3.”
“New infrastructure such as data centres requires land, but land ownership in Scotland continues to be concentrated in the hands of anonymous corporate investors such as Gresham House, which, according to research by Andy Wightman, is now the second-largest private landowner in the country. It is clear that, without a presumed limit on land ownership, remote corporate entities such as Gresham House will continue to monopolise Scotland’s natural resources, including energy. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Scotland’s natural resources—which are, after all, public goods— must, at the very least, be used in the public interest? Gillian Martin: Again, that is quite a tangential subject to the talk of data centres.”
“We announced the interim stance and agreed to conduct a consultation. Together with officials, the corporate body has been considering its approach to that consultation and, earlier today, we agreed the next steps. Various activities were already under way to review our facilities and policies to better support people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Those various workstreams, including the consultation, will now come together under the inclusive Parliament review. We will engage Holyrood passholders and external organisations representing people with specific protected characteristics as part of that work.”
“I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to everybody present for my unacceptable lateness. Following the SPCB’s announcement regarding the interim position on the Supreme Court ruling, the executive committee of the Public and Commercial Services Union’s Scottish Parliament branch expressed its concerns about what it said was a complete lack of consultation with the recognised trade unions. The SPCB claims that it is consulting the unions, but I am told that that is categorically untrue and that the trade unions have not been consulted on the interim position. When will meaningful consultation take place with the trade unions on that position? Jackson Carlaw: Our obligation was to implement the ruling, based on the legal advice that we received. As I said, we have today signed off the next phase of consultation by the corporate body.”
“The Scottish Government does my constituents in the north-east no favours by making promises that it will not keep. If the First Minister is serious and has been serious for several years about the use of that technology in that site, why did the ScotWind leasing round award seabed rights for the MarramWind wind farm on the very same site as the Acorn project? What is he doing to remedy that? The First Minister: I will have to take away the issue that Mercedes Villalba has raised with me. The ScotWind leasing round was completed in an orderly process, with decisions made based on the evidence that is available to the Government. I will carefully consider the point that the member has made to me, but I do not think that there is any incompatibility between the approaches that have been taken. Biodegradable Waste 5.”
“That is an example of why we have escalated NHS Grampian to stage 4 of the escalation framework, so that we can provide additional assistance for it to improve its unscheduled care pathway. We recognise the difficulty in ambulance turnaround times at Aberdeen royal infirmary, which was part of the reason for the critical incident that took place before Christmas. Everything that we are doing is to support a better flow of patients through the system, including through enhanced frailty services in the ARI, the call before convey work that the Scottish Ambulance Service is doing and an escalation in hospital-at-home services. The work in all those areas is to alleviate pressure on unscheduled care pathways so that the experience of Mercedes Villalba’s constituent does not happen to others. Patient Transport (Eskdale) 3.”
“Ambulances are a lifeline at a time of desperate need, but figures show that, so far in 2025, more than half of all ambulances in Scotland have been stuck on hospital forecourts for more than 45 minutes. In one of those was my constituent, who, after having had a stroke, spent seven hours overnight in a sweltering ambulance, with no food or drink, waiting for a bed in the Aberdeen royal infirmary. A spokesperson for NHS Grampian said that that was regrettable and apologised, but the fact remains that it is an institution at stage 4 that is facing sustained pressure and has the lowest number of beds per head of population in the country. What is the minister doing to support NHS Grampian to increase capacity? Neil Gray: The situation that Mercedes Villalba recounts is not only regrettable but unacceptable.”
“As a high-protein sustainable food source, Scottish venison should be available to everyone. However, I have heard reports of land managers burying deer rather than allowing them to be processed to feed the nation. What action is the Scottish Government taking to prevent wealthy landowners from blocking venison for the many? Jim Fairlie: I do not accept the premise of that question. We are going through vital deer management processes to allow us to restore nature and reduce damage to habitats. As I said, deer are not a problem species; they are part of our natural heritage. We should be able to put venison into our public food processing and our larders so that we can all enjoy it. Health and Social Care Recruitment by Care Home Providers (Brexit) 1.”
“And the actions of those men and of the Israeli Government, as grave as they are, are not at all surprising. What is surprising is the blind eye that has been turned by so much of the international community. That must not be allowed to continue. The UK Government must immediately suspend all UK arms exports to Israel, and the Scottish Government must ensure that no public money is awarded to companies that are manufacturing and supplying arms or their components to Israel. Whether our Governments act will come down to the people, as it always does. Through the votes that we cast, through the voices that we raise and through the choices that we make, together we can turn the tide. 19:14”