Douglas Lumsden
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“That is absolutely shameful. Tim Eagle: Answer the question. The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. The First Minister: It is all very well for Mr Eagle to take issue with me on this question, but the real guilty parties on Brexit and its implications for agriculture are the Conservative Party and its activities, and the Conserva…”
“Back in November, I criticised the draft climate change plan for being yet another Scottish National Party propaganda pamphlet that was heavy on rhetoric and light on detail, and the full plan is more of the same.”
“Will the cabinet secretary apologise for finding the time to jet all over the world while failing to produce an energy strategy? When will the cabinet secretary come forward with more detail about the cost of the policies included in the plan, so that she can finally be honest with Scots about how much it will cost them?”
“The plan will also, as I have mentioned—and as has been said in an independent report—provide more than £8 billion in co-benefits, including through improvements in population health brought about by active travel, warmer homes and cleaner air.”
“If I am lucky enough to be back in Parliament and lucky enough to be still doing this job, I will continue to deliver on the plan, which will include working globally with other sub-national and national Governments that understand that the fundamental challenge of our time is decarbonisation.”
“Continuation of that support has been built into the new members’ expenses scheme, as the need for on-going additional support was recognised by the corporate body during its recent review of the scheme, prior to the new session.”
The complete record
Every one of 543 lines we hold for Douglas Lumsden, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 11.
“Willie Rennie: I praise the indefatigability of Ross Greer for forever pursuing the reform of council tax. He is a starry-eyed optimist when he comes and talks about that issue, and quite rightly so. He has pursued it, in many cases, in the same way as Liberal Democrats have done, but to no avail. We have seen repeated working groups, joint working groups, cross-party task forces, commissions, citizens assemblies, roadshows and debates—endless barriers to actually doing anything at all to reform the council tax. Liberal Democrat members will be voting for some of Ross Greer’s amendments to try and make that point. However, the most important point is that, if the Government’s words are not to be hollow, it needs to come forward with proposals itself, rather than hiding behind processes for evermore.”
“Earlier this year, more than 80 organisations from across the hospitality and tourist sector issued a stark warning that, without urgent changes, the visitor levy scheme would, in their words, cause “harm to both Scotland’s economy and individual businesses.” Right now, we see different councils—including the one here in Edinburgh—bringing forward plans for a visitor levy. At the same time, we do not know what the future of the levy will be, including whether the Government will bring forward changes, when it might do so, or what their impact might amount to. Our call is therefore that, in the interests of Scottish business, before more damage is done, there should be a moratorium on the visitor levy until we see how it resolves itself.”
“It is curious that we have not seen a full economic impact assessment of the likely impact of the visitor levy and, unsurprisingly, there is widespread concern across the tourist sector and the economy more widely about what the impact of the visitor levy is likely to be. We on the Conservative side of the chamber have consistently warned of the likely impact of the visitor levy, and we have been joined in that by many industry representatives. Just last week, we saw a chaotic and shambolic situation, whereby, one day, the Minister for Public Finance announced that the Government was going to bring forward changes to the visitor levy and, three days later, corrected himself, saying that the Government was just going to consider doing so. Unsurprisingly, that has caused a great deal of uncertainty and dismay in the tourist sector.”
“It was a stated aim of that Administration that it would seek to support co- operative housing and consider LBTT relief. It is beyond time for that scoping exercise to happen. If the Government is serious about community wealth building and tackling the housing emergency, it must act. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I remind colleagues to either take their conversations outside or keep them much quieter. I call Murdo Fraser to speak to amendment 376 on behalf of Rachael Hamilton and to other amendments in the group. Murdo Fraser: Amendments 376 and 377 in the name of my colleague Rachael Hamilton are probing amendments to try to determine the impact of the visitor levy on housing and other aspects of the economy.”
“It would require the Scottish Government to produce a report on the impact of LBTT and ADS on the co-op and community-led housing sector. It would enable the Government to see for itself that there is a real need for those reliefs to be applied to the housing co-op model. As I have already set out, co-ops are crucial if we are to tackle the housing emergency. Providing them with appropriate reliefs would allow them to play more of a role in providing housing for people of all backgrounds. Through collective power, co- ops can provide affordable, quality housing for all, without the need for much taxpayer support. However, they need Government facilitation if they are to become more strongly established and expand. The SNP recognised that during the period of the Bute house agreement coalition Government.”
“Likewise, the model offers social benefits that can lead to positive health and wellbeing outcomes, taking pressure off public services. In short, co-ops are vital if Scotland is serious about the community wealth building agenda and tackling the housing emergency. Frustratingly, England is ahead of Scotland on co-ops. South of the border, co-ops get a form of relief from stamp duty, despite working under a weaker legal definition than the one that I am proposing through my amendments 113 and 114, and it allows them to operate effectively in extremely challenging housing markets, such as in London. By agreeing to my amendments, we can change that and significantly improve housing outcomes for people all over Scotland. My amendment 360 is a back-up to amendments 113 and 114.”
“Those robust provisions have been drafted with the support of the Confederation of Co-operative Housing and Co-operatives UK, as well as individual housing co-ops across Scotland. When I meet those organisations, they always say that LBTT and ADS are the biggest barriers to the co- op sector in Scotland and that those taxes make it harder for co-ops to get started and meet demand. That matters, because the co-op model should have a big role to play in tackling our housing emergency. It offers an affordable option between renting and owning that takes pressure off local authorities and individual budgets. It also locks in collective wealth; instead of rent payments leaving the community, they circulate back into improving homes, strengthening the co-op and supporting long-term affordability.”
“Likewise, my definition is careful to state that shares and share capital are not subject to the market forces that make other types of housing so unaffordable. The idea is that anyone can live in a co-op, regardless of their economic background or stage of life, and that those who do so cannot abuse their share of the co-op for their own gain. The wealth that is created through members’ contributions should be held collectively, reinvested in the homes and the community, and passed on to future members. The whole concept is a purely democratic model, whereby co-ops redistribute wealth away from speculative and individual gain and into secure, affordable housing for the many.”
“The bulk of housing co-ops in Scotland are not registered social landlords or charities, which is often because of the way that they are set up or run, or the purposes that they serve, which prevents them from having either status. For example, the Edinburgh student housing co-op cannot be a social landlord or charity, but it enables students from low-income backgrounds to secure affordable housing in a challenging housing market, so it is a significant public good. Amendments 113 and 114 both contain strict rules—set out under subsection (3) of each amendment—that co-ops would have to meet if they were to get exemptions. Key points to note are that only tenants, or those who are soon to move into a co-op, would be allowed to make decisions about how the co-op is run.”
“I am pleased to hear the cabinet secretary say that there could be a debate about council tax revaluation in the Parliament in early 2026. That would be a good thing, but this legislation is not the place to make such a change. Ross Greer knows that, but at least he got a press release out of it. Ariane Burgess: Housing co-ops play an important role in Scotland’s housing landscape, and it is vital that we support them. Amendment 113 would remove the ADS burden from all housing co-ops, not only those that are registered as charities or social landlords; and amendment 114 would exempt housing co-operatives from land and buildings transaction tax.”
“What would happen in a circumstance in which a person defers graduating for a year so that they can graduate with a friend? Would they be exempt from paying council tax for all that time? Graham Simpson: Unfortunately, Mr Lumsden did not appear to hear what I said. I will not move amendment 247, because it has problems— probably the exact problems that he has alluded to. This group of amendments has allowed Ross Greer to re-rehearse the arguments that he made at stage 2 about reforming council tax. He knew then, as he knows now, that although there is great merit in looking at council tax reform, it really needs separate legislation. That is also the case with his LBTT amendments—the issue needs proper consultation—although I accept that it has gone into the too-difficult box for too long.”
“I seek your guidance on what other methods I can use to get an answer, which my constituents and business deserve. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you for providing advance notice of your point of order, Mr Lumsden. As you will be aware, the content of ministerial responses—as I suggested to your colleague Rachael Hamilton earlier—is not a matter for the chair; it is a matter for the Scottish Government. You have put your point on record. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business, to allow front-bench teams to change over. One Scotland, Many Voices”
“On a point of order. Presiding Officer. Can you offer me guidance on how I can get an answer to my very simple question: when will the Government release its energy strategy? On 17 occasions in the past year and a half, I have asked ministers to bring forward a timeline. If the cabinet secretary has time to jet around the world selling Scotland’s countryside, surely she has time to come to Parliament and release a strategy that has been three years in the making. Presiding Officer, I believe that the cabinet secretary’s failure to do so is discourteous to this place, that it falls far short of the standards that you yourself set for this place and that it shows a lack of the courtesy and respect to members and the chair that the MSP code of conduct demands.”
“As much as I do not like the Labour Government’s energy policy, at least it has the bottle to publish one. John Swinney’s Government has a presumption against new oil and gas projects, but wannabe First Minister Stephen Flynn seems to want the drilling to continue. Can the cabinet secretary state when the energy policy will be published, so that the devolved Government’s position will finally be clarified? Gillian Martin: We have published many policy decisions on energy. Douglas Lumsden asked for policy decisions, and he need only go to the Government’s website to view a plethora of energy policy decisions.”
“Mr Lumsden raises the particular issue of how different parts of the country might be affected, and I entirely agree with him on that. I will make sure that that is reflected in the representations that the cabinet secretary makes on the matter.”
“I have a follow-up to the question about STV. It is good to hear the First Minister give his support on the issue, because one of the big consequences will be far less local news that is relevant to the north and the north-east. Does the First Minister agree that the proposed change is bad news for Scottish viewers, especially those who live in rural communities, and that it should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency? The First Minister: I share Mr Lumsden’s specific concern, because I understand that one of the components of the STV proposals is that the Aberdeen news programme would potentially cease broadcasting. Different issues affect different communities around the country, and I acknowledge that STV is very successful at reflecting the different issues in different parts of the country.”
“In the coming days, Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks will submit its planning applications to have megapylons span from the Highlands right through the north-east to the central belt. Community groups in rural areas feel ignored. Gillian Martin is happy to jet off to Japan next week to sell off Scotland’s countryside to foreign wind developers, but she still refuses to meet those community groups. Will the First Minister do something that his energy minister is too feart to do and meet those groups who are seeing their countryside trashed by energy infrastructure?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Nuclear Industry Association’s reported view that Scotland will miss out on thousands of new jobs due to its stance on nuclear energy. (S6T-02667)”
“We do not know whether the legislation will have any unintended consequences. It might be a simple legislative consent motion with no, or limited, impact, but we have had very little description of it, so it is difficult to take a view. I am not blaming the cabinet secretary or the devolved Government for the compressed timescale. From what I can tell, the UK Government has set the timelines. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport will write to the UK Government to remind it of the Parliament’s standing orders, expressing her concern that the timescales that were given for consent were not realistic. The Parliament and its members have a clear role to play in creating laws, and we should not be sidetracked by any Government, regardless of its colour. That is why we will not support the motion. 17:17”
“I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Transport for her explanation of the legislative consent motion, as I now know a little more about it. It is a pity that there has not been time for the legislative consent memorandum to be considered at committee so that we could understand more about it. The Parliament has standing orders for a reason: they are there so that we can have good governance and so that committees can review and report on legislative consent motions. Committees produce such reports so that members who are not on the committee can learn what changes are being proposed and give their consent to them. There has been no report on this legislative consent memorandum and it has not been reviewed by a committee. We have not examined what the legislation will mean or asked bus operators for their views.”
“The SNP Government needs to listen to our communities and to our hard-working Scots, who are angry because they are paying more and getting less. 16:41”
“The Government needs to understand the strain that communities are under due to high levels of illegal migration. Scots struggle to get appointments at dentists and GPs, and NHS waiting lists have spiralled out of control. We have a housing emergency and people cannot get into social housing. The list of pressures goes on. Jamie Greene is right that those pressures existed before. However, if members think that illegal immigration is not playing a part in all of this, they are deluded. Hard-working families who have paid into the state for their whole lives are being forgotten about. That is the view of people out there. People see that our public services are under strain. Local councils that already face a funding crisis due to years of SNP austerity are left to pick up the tab for the SNP’s open-door policy.”
“The minister who replied said that I should be ashamed of myself for asking the question. Does that not show how out of touch SNP members are with the ordinary people of Scotland? They do not share their concerns. Douglas Lumsden: Stephen Kerr is right. Whether we like to talk about it or not, these are the real concerns of people outside. We are here as a Parliament, and we have to represent the views of all those people. There is no real deterrent in this country. The Rwanda scheme was perhaps not perfect and not liked by everyone, but it would have been a start. Instead, we have Labour and the SNP sending out all the wrong signals. We should not be encouraging illegal immigrants to cross the Channel in dinghies, allegedly fleeing persecution, conflict or danger in war-torn France. We simply cannot cope.”
“The SNP seems genuinely confused about what is legal and what is illegal. Let me try to spell it out for its members. A person applying for a visa, being granted that visa, bringing their skills to the UK and contributing to our economy is perfectly legal—and welcome. Crossing the Channel in a small boat is illegal. Not only that—it is dangerous and life threatening, and it enables criminals. We should not be welcoming people into this country who cross the Channel illegally. If SNP members cannot understand that, it proves that they are out of touch with communities right across Scotland, who are angry. Stephen Kerr: That is the whole point. At general question time last week, I asked a question about homelessness in Glasgow, pointing out the issues surrounding the numbers of refugees or asylum seekers—call them what you will.”
“The problem that fellow Scots are angry about is illegal migration. The First Minister likes to remind us at every opportunity that we are a country that follows the rule of law. Kaukab Stewart: In the spirit of the fact that language matters, would Douglas Lumsden accept that there is no such thing as illegal migration, due to the 1951 convention, to which this country is signed up, and that he would be better advised to use the language that is appropriate, which is “regular and irregular routes”? Douglas Lumsden: If people are coming here illegally, it is illegal migration. I think that is the term that everyone accepts. When it comes to illegal immigration, the Government is quite happy to look the other way and welcome with open arms these individuals who have dangerously entered the country illegally.”
“During the recess, there was a protest outside the asylum hotel in Westhill, just outside Aberdeen. There were three groups: the protest, the counter-protest and a group at the other side of the road, where I was, who were just watching what was going on. Regardless of what people think of the protesters, we have to acknowledge that a lot of people are angry at what they see going on over immigration. Let us set this straight up front: legal migration is good, our country is great and it is the way it is today because of legal, controlled migration. We owe so much to those who have come to this country and who call the United Kingdom their home. We are in a position where we can control our own borders, and we can attract the skills and professions that we need—be they doctors, dentists or nurses, all of whom we have a shortage of.”
“As a Parliament, we have standing orders in place to support good governance. Therefore, the Scottish Conservatives intend to oppose this revision to the business programme, as it suspends the standing orders to subvert normal process, which I will expand on in tomorrow’s legislative consent motion debate after today’s motion inevitably passes. The Presiding Officer: I call Jamie Hepburn to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. 17:09”
“The Caledonian Sleeper chief executive costs in the region of a quarter of a million pounds. More integration would have made sense. The change was made at the taxpayer’s expense, just to satisfy the egos and ideologies of the SNP. Overall, ScotRail is running fewer trains than it did before Covid; decarbonisation has been pushed back a decade; ScotRail is running half-a- century-old trains; Caledonian sleeper prices have increased, as has the burden to the taxpayer; and the facilities on board ScotRail trains are miles behind where they should be. The promised £200 million for north-east rail improvements was a lie, and the SNP thinks that that is a cause for celebration.”
“Once again, those proposals have been met with a lukewarm reception from the SNP Government. When it comes to rail, there are even more SNP broken promises. We were told that rail services would be decarbonised by 2035, but that has since been pushed back a decade and there seems to be very little detail, even for the new deadline. Our diesel trains will have to be replaced soon, and there will be no option but to replace them with other diesel trains—probably more hand-me-down trains from parts of the country that have got their act together and electrified. I will also quickly mention Caledonian Sleeper. Two years after bringing it into public ownership, the question must be asked—what was the point? There are no new services, fares are not reduced, and its management team is still separate from ScotRail’s.”
“In Aberdeen Donside, there is only one station; in Aberdeenshire East, there is only one station; and in Banffshire and Buchan Coast, there are no stations. I encourage the SNP members who would like to celebrate the removal of peak fares to spare a thought for many in the north-east who will not benefit one bit from this policy—it is central belt bias once again. Rail services in the north-east could be improved. My colleague Liam Kerr has a petition to open stations at Cove and Newtonhill to the south of Aberdeen, but those calls seem to be falling on deaf ears as no support is forthcoming from the SNP Government. The excellent Campaign for North East Rail proposes new routes to Fraserburgh and Peterhead, which would unlock huge economic benefits for the north-east.”
“Travellers hoped one day to travel the 120-mile route in about two hours; it was hoped that the only section of single track between Aberdeen and continental Europe at Usan might finally be dualled and that sections of the line might be straightened to make it faster. Nine years later, with approximately 5 per cent of the committed money spent, the people of the north-east can finally see what that announcement was—a pre- election gimmick by this rotten devolved Government. In the north-east, we are getting used to the SNP’s broken promises. The £200 million rail improvement programme has gone the same way as the dualling of the A96 and the Alex Salmond commitment to dualling the A90 north of Ellon. The dualling of the A90 north of Ellon is important to many of my constituents, because rail services simply do not exist for many of them.”
“Outwith the central belt, our rolling stock is an embarrassment—something that the Government’s motion fails to acknowledge. The motion attempts to paint a rosy picture of rail services in Scotland, while the reality is that, in many parts of our country, the service falls way short of what is expected in a modern country and, in some parts, it is simply non-existent. It could be far better—even the SNP knows that. Back in 2016, a few months before the Scottish Parliament elections, the SNP committed to spending £200 million to reduce journey times between Aberdeen and the central belt by 20 minutes by 2026.”
“Douglas Lumsden: Mark Ruskell needs to remember when those InterCity trains were taken back up to Scotland to run for ScotRail—it was only about six years ago. We are miles behind other developed countries when it comes to intercity services, but I guess I should be thankful that my train was actually running. During recess, I attended a convention in Inverness that was organised by community groups that were angry at the impact of major energy infrastructure. I got on the 6 pm train to get me back to Aberdeen, only for it to be cancelled because the air conditioning was not working. Simply opening the windows was not a good enough solution, and we were all told to wait for three and a half hours for the next train. There was no bus replacement service and no option to get on the warm train—we were just told to wait.”
“I was on one of those 50-year-old trains recently, with Russell Findlay. The sockets did not work—we mentioned it to the person on board, and he said, “Well, most of them don’t.” I do not think that the catering section on those trains has ever been open; it just takes up space. The trolley service was still offering the same old tired selection and the wifi was unusable. If the SNP Government thinks that it is operating a world-class rail service, it is completely deluded. We are miles behind other developed countries. Mark Ruskell: Would the member reflect on the fact that that has been a failure of the privatisation of the rolling-stock companies? They have kept trains running for far longer than they should have done—those trains should have been scrapped far earlier and replaced with a modern fleet.”
“I must admit that I enjoy taking part in a rail debate—I feel that I am a bit of a rail geek. I love the whole nostalgia of the railway, the history and the engines. My earliest memory of being on a train is as a young lad of about seven or eight years old. We had special tickets to go on the brand-new InterCity 125, which was going from Aberdeen to Aviemore. It was a special day trip to mark those new trains coming into service, and we got tickets only because one of our neighbours was a train driver—I felt really lucky. Little did I know, however, that nearly 50 years later, those trains would still be in service in places such as Mexico, Nigeria and Scotland. The SNP espouses the value of net zero, yet it shamefully allows the situation in which we rely on those gas- guzzling hand-me-downs to connect our cities.”
“[Interruption.] Some members think that money being wasted on Mulberry wallets is funny, but the people I represent do not find it funny at all.”
“The cabinet secretary’s letter to the committee talks about establishing a peer-led sponsorship network. I suggest to the cabinet secretary that we might need a bit more than another talking shop. The narrative around WICS is not the only story of taxpayers’ money being wasted by this out-of-time Scottish National Party Government. Whether it is ferries, prisons, spin doctors or equality and diversity champions, time and again, the hard- earned money of hard-working Scots has been squandered. Quite frankly, it is a disgrace, and the Scottish public are well and truly sick and tired of seeing their cash disappear under the SNP’s watch. Only the Scottish Conservatives are offering commonsense solutions to the issues that Scotland faces.”
“Douglas Lumsden: The first thing that I would like to hear is an apology to the people of Scotland for all the money that has been wasted. WICS was under the remit of the Scottish Government, and the Scottish Government has failed in looking after the organisation. I also asked whether you knew of any other organisations being reviewed. Perhaps some of them are not under your remit. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Douglas Lumsden: I would like to know whether the Scottish Government is doing a full review of all organisations to see whether such a culture exists in other places. Outside agencies are acting with impunity, and this devolved Government must either take control of outcomes or oversee them more robustly.”
“That has led to massive waste of taxpayers’ money and a decline in trust in our public bodies among the Scottish people. Responsibility for that lies solely at the feet of the Scottish Government. Although the committee has received a helpful response from the new chief executive that accepts the committee’s recommendations and talks about enacting remedial policies to fix the financial irregularities, the Scottish Government’s assurances fall short. The Scottish National Party has created a quango culture of organisations delivering services that should be under the purview of the Scottish Government. Gillian Martin: I invite Douglas Lumsden to tell me what was missing in my speech. What more would he like to see from me by way of answering any of the questions in the report?”
“These have led to a failure to ensure appropriate safeguarding of public funds.” More public money has been wasted. The report goes on to further criticise the Government for appearing to encourage the chief executive to negotiate an early exit date. That meant that a full disciplinary process that would have examined a full account of the failings at WICS by the chief executive never happened. Although the financial irregularities are bad enough, there were also significant failings in the culture of the organisation, with high levels of bullying being reported by staff. There was a poor work culture after Covid, and there were failings by management to address issues among the staff. All that speaks to a breakdown in the operation of WICS and to a failure in oversight by the Scottish Government.”
“Spending decisions were made without consultation with anyone, and the chief executive and senior management did not seek sign-off for large items of expenditure that should have been discussed. Policies were in place but were ignored by the senior management team. That is a shocking state of affairs for any public body to be in. However, the list goes on. The committee’s report criticised the Scottish Government for not intervening on the WICS training policy. The Government was aware of the high cost of training, including—let us not forget—courses at Harvard University, which included all flights and accommodation, and we heard today that it was business-class travel. The committee notes that there have been “significant weaknesses and failings in the Scottish Government’s sponsorship of WICS.”
“Audit Scotland found that WICS demonstrated poor governance over its finances, that there was little to no due process and that there was no concept of ensuring value for money. The way that senior officials used public money was simply “unacceptable”. Audit Scotland also found that WICS needed to do more to ensure that it was delivering best value for money to the taxpayer. The board seemed to be disengaged with the day-to-day operation of the organisation, and oversight was not happening at any level. People need to understand that board membership for organisations such as WICS brings with it serious responsibilities, which seem to have been overlooked.”
“It is that spurious waste of taxpayers’ money that continues to undermine the confidence of the Scottish people in this devolved Government. When those activities came to light and the chief executive was forced to resign, the Government continued to cost the taxpayer money with an ill- thought-out severance package. Audit Scotland said that that decision was taken too quickly and without considering the wider options. He should have been sacked for gross misconduct, not given a package to leave. In Audit Scotland’s scathing report and in the committee’s report, we can see a culture of misspending, expenses claims that do not fit with policy and a flagrant disregard for ensuring benefit for the public purse.”
“It gives me no pleasure to make this my first speech after recess. I thank the committee for its forensic analysis of what went wrong at WICS. I welcome the convener’s contribution and the cabinet secretary’s words, which recognised the significant failings at the organisation. The committee’s report catalogues a litany of errors that, at best, pushed the limits of the financial rules and that were, at worst, fraudulent. From a public viewpoint, there was clearly a massive waste of taxpayers’ money, which was used to line the pockets of quango fat cats who acted without fear of being caught or had some idea that they were untouchable and were simply taking what they were entitled to. From Mulberry wallets to lavish dinners, the culture of entitlement was rife.”
“That has included publication of a revised framework between Scottish ministers and WICS in order to make the respective roles and responsibilities clearer and to ensure that there is a systematic approach to engagement, rather than an overreliance on any one individual. My officials regularly attend WICS board meetings as observers. We have further increased the capacity of the sponsorship team for 2025, and all its members have completed the required training.”
“We have formally reviewed the sponsorship relationship and very much agree with the committee’s conclusion that it was, unfortunately, nowhere near as robust as it should have been. The issues at WICS should have been brought to our attention sooner. We recognise that officials should have taken a more proactive approach to potentially novel or contentious expenditure and, similarly, we recognise that the sponsor team should have been more proactive in supporting the WICS board to consider all the available options in relation to the departure of the former chief executive. We have acted decisively to make changes, including by addressing all the actions that were identified in the internal sponsorship review.”
“Has there been any review of other organisations to see whether there have been other breaches of policies and processes similar to those that we have seen at WICS? Gillian Martin: As I said, the sponsorship arrangements between the Government and public bodies have been completely reviewed. As part of that, we are ensuring that there are plural oversight relationships and that there is communication about what is happening at board level in all public bodies. If the member wants to ask about any specific public body, he can write to the minister concerned to get information. I have oversight of WICS. Ministers have reflected on the Scottish Government’s role in relation to the issues at WICS.”
“No, it was not. Fiona Hyslop: All right—as run by private operators following the Conservative Government’s privatisation of the rail service. I am pleased to see that the new Labour Government is looking to copy Scotland and to take the rail service into public ownership. We can try to make improvements on both track and train. If we are to improve them on the Fife line in particular, we need to make sure that we are progressing on the electrification. The work between Edinburgh and Dalmeny is already under way, so those improvements are being made. We will also see improvements to the service that, as I indicated to Annabelle Ewing, we will set out in the plans shortly.”
“Gillian Martin: I thank the Presiding Officer for making that point. It is not directly related to Stuart McMillan’s important question about the importance of renewable energy generation to power Scotland’s economy in the future.”
“This week, offshore Europe is taking place in Aberdeen, where the best of our energy sector are showcasing to the world the value and skills that an oil and gas sector provides. While I was there, it was put to me that the sector has been waiting more than 31 months for Scotland’s energy strategy. That is 31 months of people having no idea whether the devolved Government still has a presumption against new oil and gas. There is even a petition calling on the Scottish Government to provide the strategy. Can the cabinet secretary commit to releasing the strategy before the end of the year or even before the next election? Can she provide some clarity on this important strategy? The Deputy Presiding Officer: That is not directly related to the substantive question. Cabinet secretary, do you have anything to add?”