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 9 of 11.
“The transition task force also said that, while we are transitioning towards renewables, it makes absolute sense to take what we can from the North Sea. Does the First Minister recognise the vital role that oil and gas will play in the transition? Will his party abandon its presumption against new oil and gas and ditch its hostility to the sector, which supports more than 80,000 jobs in the north-east? The First Minister: The Scottish Government has no hostility to the oil and gas sector— [Interruption.] I will say it again to reassure the Conservatives that they heard it the first time— [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the First Minister. The First Minister: There is no hostility in this Government to oil and gas. We are committed to a rational transition to net zero that enables us to fulfil our climate objectives.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on when it will publish its energy strategy and just transition plan. (S6O- 04532)”
“As a result of the increase in the cost of energy, a massive counterbalancing factor has been employed against everything that the Scottish Government has been doing to increase the incomes of the very people to whom Douglas Lumsden referred. For instance, the figure for those who are in extreme fuel poverty—who spend 20 per cent of their income or more on keeping warm—would now be down to 7 per cent. That would still be too many people, but it would mean that we were on target to meet our ambitions to deal with that in Scotland. The inaction of successive UK Governments— Douglas Lumsden: The war in Ukraine. Alasdair Allan: The member mentions the war in Ukraine. I do not deny the importance of that, but the inaction of successive UK Governments to deal with the fundamental issue, which is the cost of fuel, is why we have fuel poverty.”
“What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact that the growing tax burden will have on households in fuel poverty? Does the minister have any clue when the energy strategy will be published? The 2021 report “Tackling Fuel Poverty in Scotland: A Strategic Approach” promised an increase in the number of whole- house retrofits for households in fuel poverty. How many whole-house retrofits have been completed so far? Alasdair Allan: In among that rhetoric, there were some important questions that I will try to address. At the outset, I point out that, in all of that, Douglas Lumsden overlooked the fact that the single biggest factor in driving fuel poverty is the cost of fuel—otherwise, it would not be called fuel poverty.”
“Frankly, it is no surprise that this devolved Government is trying to play the people of Scotland for fools by shirking all responsibility. The Labour Government’s decisions have been absolutely disastrous, but the rise in fuel poverty has the Scottish National Party’s grubby fingerprints all over it. Thanks to the SNP, across Scotland today, council tax is up, rail fares are up, ferry fares are up and water bills are up. Labour’s callous decision to ditch the winter fuel payment coupled with the shared disdain of Labour and the SNP for our domestic oil and gas industry means that the cost to families of simply keeping warm will only increase. Those two left- wing Governments are choosing to squeeze household finances with more and more taxes, and the people of Scotland are worse off as a result.”
“The point that he makes about the sharing of information when people come into custody is equally applicable to when people are liberated. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the statement. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business, to allow members on the front benches to change places. Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1”
“The cabinet secretary mentioned the sharing of information between the courts, the NHS and the SPS at the time of a person’s admission to prison. Will she also confirm that the sharing of data will take place at the release of a person from prison? Such sharing of information could have saved the life of my constituent Alan Geddes, who was murdered by someone who had been released from prison just hours earlier. Angela Constance: I very much appreciate Mr Lumsden’s engagement on that issue. I had the privilege of meeting his constituent Ms Sandra Geddes with respect to the death—the murder—of her beloved brother. I will keep Mr Lumsden updated on the progress on release planning and throughcare support.”
“We want to make sure that our communities are informed and engaged and have better opportunities to purchase land, and the bill will ensure that our communities are no longer in the dark about the decisions that impact them. The bill and its provisions will build on the hard- won reforms since the inception of the Parliament, ensuring basic fairness and equality of opportunity for a range of communities and individuals. With that, I call on members across the chamber to vote in favour of the general principles of the bill, to ensure that we move forward together on the next step of our land reform journey. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution 17:30”
“I note the recommendation in the committee’s report that timescales should be adjusted for pre-notification, and I agree that it is important that timescales are adequate for that process. I will consider that carefully before lodging any stage 2 amendments to extend the timescales. Proposals were also made on the minimum size of land transfer below which pre- notification would not apply. I agree with that principle and am content to look at further proposals. Many issues have been raised today and, unfortunately, I will not be able to cover them all, as I must draw to a close. Land reform goes to the heart of the debate about what kind of Scotland we want for ourselves and for future generations. The bill marks another significant step on our land reform journey—one that will deliver real change for communities across our nation.”
“Of course, I recognise that there are links between the measures in the bill and the community right to buy, but it is important that the review that we are undertaking is allowed to be completed according to its own timescales. The conclusions of the review need to be considered in a meaningful way before we legislate, because, if we rush changes in order to meet the timescales for the bill, there could be unintended consequences. If, following appropriate consideration of the review, we decide that legislative changes are needed, that work will be taken forward in separate, future legislation. A number of points were raised about pre- notification timescales.”
“Douglas Lumsden: If the thresholds are changed and there are significant changes to the bill as it goes through the Parliament, will the cabinet secretary commit to lodging a refreshed financial memorandum in the Parliament so that it can be scrutinised properly? Mairi Gougeon: I think that I answered that question in the point that I just made. We need to look carefully at the financial implications of any changes to the thresholds, for landowners and for ourselves, and I will be looking at that information as we proceed to stage 2. The community right to buy has been raised throughout the afternoon. It was raised by Edward Mountain and Ariane Burgess, in particular, and I hear their disappointment about the phasing of the community right to buy review.”
“Like the committee, I can see some merit in aligning the thresholds, for simplicity and for policy cohesion. I know that the Scottish Land Commission has made recommendations on that. Part 1 of the bill as introduced aligns the thresholds at 1,000 hectares, which would mean that land management plans would deliver greater transparency for more than 50 per cent of Scotland’s land compared to just over 40 per cent at present. I want to carefully consider the additional costs that that would add for landowners, who would be required to produce a land management plan, as well as for the public purse, so that we can be confident that the requirements are targeted in a proportionate way.”
“To throw away the opportunity to make things fairer for our tenant farmers is wrong, as he suggested when he rejected all the other measures in the bill out of hand. In 2016, a review of agricultural holdings legislation led to legal changes, and there has been continued engagement and consultation with tenant farmers ever since. We have to take forward these proposals, taking into consideration the views that have been expressed across the chamber and the committee’s recommendations, in order that our tenant farmers will have equal access to the future support framework that we are delivering through the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. Thresholds have been raised as an issue a number of times across the chamber.”
“I do not accept some members’ view that it is only by owning land at scale that good things can be done. As the committee’s report highlighted, and as many of those who gave evidence to the committee said, there are many examples of other countries taking forward positive work to deal with the climate and environment challenges that we face through collaboration and by working together. The Just Transition Commission has consistently noted that current patterns of land ownership in Scotland are a major barrier to a just transition, so we have to try to tackle those inequalities. Tim Eagle raised some concerns about part 2 of the bill. It is simply wrong to reject part 2 in its entirety as if no engagement or work has been done in the intervening periods between legislation on agricultural holdings.”
“I hope that, during the debate, he has managed to get his breath back, given the speed at which he delivered his speech, although I disagree with much of what he set out. As I outlined in my intervention on Douglas Lumsden, I have visited businesses, farms and estates of all sizes across Scotland, and there are good landowners—no one is saying otherwise— who are engaging well with communities and are doing great work, as Liam McArthur also recognised; however, there are also landowners who are not doing those things. I welcome Monica Lennon’s passionate contribution to the debate. She made a clear point that we cannot simply rely on the benevolence of landowners—responsibilities have to come with owning large tracts of land in Scotland, or how else will we manage or try to tackle areas in which we know there are issues?”
“I really look forward to that, and I appreciate the openness today, from members on all sides of the chamber, to working with me in drafting amendments. As I was saying, we are seeking to strengthen the bill by looking at strengthening the definitions for the landholdings in scope; providing more time for community bodies under pre-notification; and making sure that penalties for landowners who breach obligations are a strong deterrent. I am also considering possible revisions to part 2 in relation to rent and compensation for agricultural improvements, to name just a couple of areas. As ever, a number of points were raised during the debate that I want to address. I will first touch on Tim Eagle’s contribution.”
“That will include looking at excluding small transfers from pre-notification and setting out clear timescales for lotting decisions. However, we are also going to look to strengthen some of the provisions in the bill— Edward Mountain: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Mairi Gougeon: I will. Edward Mountain: It seems as though there is going to be a long list of amendments to the bill. How is the cabinet secretary going to ensure that the committee has enough time in which to consider those before we go into what is bound to be a fairly lengthy amendment period? Mairi Gougeon: The engagement that we undertake from this point will be important, and I am keen to start that process early, once stage 1 is concluded today.”
“It is clear to me that, although there will always be areas that we need to consider for amendment, there is some support today across the chamber for many of the measures that we propose to introduce and for the overall aims that we are trying to achieve with the bill. Nonetheless, I recognise the calls from members, and from the Scottish Land Commission in committee, for the proposals in part 1 to be simplified and improved. I take this opportunity to signal that we stand ready to work with members across the chamber, and with our valued stakeholders, including Community Land Scotland, NFU Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates, the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association and others, to deliver effective, proportionate reforms. As I set out in my response to the committee, I will carefully consider how to simplify proposals.”
“I reiterate my thanks to the committee for all its work on the bill; to all the stakeholders who have engaged with me and contributed more widely to the development of the bill; and, more broadly, to members from across the chamber who have contributed to the debate. We have heard some powerful contributions. As I said earlier, I am committed to delivering ambitious proposals that will bring about greater fairness and equality of opportunity for our rural communities. That includes the tenanted sector, which often forms the bedrock of those communities. I am committed to doing that in a way that is supported by evidence and that is fair to all parties.”
“The Government needs to balance the rights of the landowner— The Presiding Officer: You must conclude, Mr Lumsden. Douglas Lumsden: —and the rights of the tenant to ensure that the market is not damaged. The committee had concerns that that balance had not been struck. It is for those reasons that I am unable to support the bill at stage 1. The Presiding Officer: I call the cabinet secretary to wind up. You have up to eight minutes, please. 17:21 Mairi Gougeon: I will start by referencing the comments from Sarah Boyack with regard to the overall tone of today’s debate. We can see how much the issue of land reform matters to people— to MSPs on all sides of the chamber, as well as to our communities more widely.”
“I agree that that would be a good idea but, once again I worry—especially if the threshold is reduced to 1,000 hectares—about the impact on the Scottish Land Commission. In conclusion, the Scottish Conservatives will be voting against the bill at stage 1. I know that many of my committee colleagues hope that the major flaws in the bill can be amended and addressed, but that will require hundreds of amendments, and the bill may look completely different by the time it becomes law. The committee agreed that part 1 of the bill “risks not delivering” and that its approach is “potentially burdensome and bureaucratic.” Part 2 of the bill requires major revisions to get it right. At present, from the conversations that I have had, I believe that there is a serious risk of unintended consequences and of less land being available to let.”
“Tim Eagle mentioned compensation and criteria for lotting. Fergus Ewing intervened and brought up the issue of retrospective changes and possible ECHR implications. My biggest worry is that the lawyers may be the biggest winners from this bill. Ariane Burgess mentioned lower thresholds, but showed no concern for the increased workload on the Scottish Land Commission. The financial memorandum says that the SLC has to do most of the work, using “existing budgets” and reducing its current activities, which would be a concern for many. I agree with Michael Matheson that continued reform is needed. He said that repeated legislation has not worked; I am afraid to suggest that this piece of legislation will not work either. Bob Doris mentioned the inspection of land management plans for compliance.”
“Well-funded special interest groups must be held in context when it comes to those consultations. Local people, businesses and voices must have priority. Colleagues across the chamber have raised crucial points in the debate. I want to mention my colleague Tim Eagle’s comments. He was not long ago working in the area, so we should listen to him. He said that the community right to buy is under review and asked why we should make the changes at this time. That point was also made by Liam McArthur. Tim Eagle also raised the issue of how the bill could affect small land sales. The Scottish Land Commission has raised the possibility of de minimis exemptions, which sounds sensible, but we need to look very carefully at the legislation that would be brought forward on that. We also heard about huge legal risks.”
“As I was saying, having a simple cut-off such as the 3,000 hectares demonstrates the simple thinking of this Government. It makes arbitrary decisions for our rural communities with little or no understanding of the realities on the ground. It imposes what it thinks is the right thing to do from its desks in Edinburgh without meeting community groups. We have seen that time and again, whether on wood-burning stoves or the building of pylons. Bob Doris: Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Lumsden: I will come back later if I have time, Mr Doris. Bob Doris: That will be a no, then. Douglas Lumsden: It might not be a no. We broadly support the need for local management plans, but they have to be focused on who they impact and the communities with which they will interact.”
“Scale and productivity should be the key factors in determining when and how community engagement and management plans should come into effect, not an arbitrary size model. Mairi Gougeon: That is not the case at all. As Douglas Lumsden will have heard from across the chamber in the debate, there is a recognition that some landowners across Scotland are doing great work, but it is about how we are able to tackle the areas where we know that there are problems and where landowners are not undertaking that good practice. Does he agree that we need to challenge that? Douglas Lumsden: I certainly agree that most landowners do very good work, and we have heard that during the debate. Where there are issues, I absolutely agree that we should do something to tackle those, but from what I have seen, the bill will not do that.”
“It is that contribution that the central belt- focused SNP Government overlooks in its efforts to impose regulation on a sector that needs our support, not our oversight. I am particularly concerned by any suggestion to change the definition of a large holding from 3,000 hectares to 1,000 hectares. In my meeting with the cabinet secretary, which I welcomed, there was a suggestion that that could be phased. However, that would lead to additional uncertainty for landowners and to a confusing picture. Liam McArthur said that we ought to listen to the argument around the issue. I would say that we should start at 3,000 hectares and then reduce the figure by regulation. There is a misconception in the Government that big is bad; we also heard that from Liam McArthur. I understand the way that rural estates work.”
“I share the committee’s concerns about the bill. There is not enough detail, evidence or focus on the needs of our rural communities, landowners and those who live on and work the land. As a result, I must say, regrettably, that we are unable to support the bill at stage 1. My colleagues made excellent points in the debate. I will focus my comments on part 1 of the bill, because that is where I feel that it is most deeply flawed. The contribution that our rural estates make to the economy and wellbeing of Scotland cannot be underestimated or overlooked. Our rural estates contribute 57 per cent of our renewable energy generation, more than half of all new woodland, 13,000 rural enterprises, one in 10 rural jobs and 12,000 homes for workers and their families.”
“Mark Ruskell: I ask the member to reflect on the fact that we have been taking evidence in committee since June last year. We have had a long time to deal with this. Douglas Lumsden: I absolutely get that point, but we did not receive the Government’s response to our report until, I think, quarter to six last night— I think that it was even after a press release, with many mistakes in it, was sent out. I extend my thanks, as others have, to the committee clerks and our convener for the excellent stage 1 report. I also thank everyone who gave evidence and everyone who provided briefings for today’s debate. I also congratulate the Scottish Government on uniting almost everyone who gave evidence—land reform campaigners, the Scottish Land Commission, surveyors and Scottish Land & Estates all agreed that the bill would not deliver on its aims.”
“Presiding Officer, last night, I raised a point of order on the timings of this debate and the timings of the Government’s response to the committee’s report, and you confirmed that everything is compliant with standing orders. However, that does not make it right. If, as a Parliament, we want to make good and robust legislation, we have to respect the timetables that are set out by Parliament, and the fact that the devolved Government can railroad something through does not mean that it should do so. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to do things right. Even if we do not agree with a bill, we should make sure that the legislative process is the best that it can be. Mark Ruskell: Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Lumsden: I have not even started but, yes, briefly.”
“Things are better in Scotland, and we should be proud of our land reform successes. Douglas Lumsden: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?”
“The Land Commission has made a significant contribution, developing policy and driving positive change on the ground, and the tenant farming commissioner has been instrumental in improving relationships between tenants and landlords. It is easy to take for granted the rights that we have in Scotland. Assets amounting to more than 200,000 hectares—or 2.7 per cent of the total area of Scotland—are in community ownership, and we have seen tenant farmers using their pre-emptive right to buy their farms, creating opportunities for their families to invest and develop their businesses. People across Scotland are able to benefit from responsible public access to Scotland’s land. In England, the public have access to only about 8 per cent of the country and have no community right to buy.”
“All those reforms were controversial at the time, but they were the right thing to do. Then, as now, the reforms were about people, fairness and dignity. Previous land reforms have improved the lives of ordinary Scots, just as our proposals will. There were early changes, such as the abolition of the feudal system, and the Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive introduced the landmark right to roam and community rights to buy. There have also been more recent improvements, such as the introduction of assignation and relinquishment reforms for retiring tenant farmers and compulsory community rights to buy. The establishment of the Scottish Land Commission in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 by one of my predecessors, Richard Lochhead, was another milestone, ensuring that we have a continuing focus on land reform.”
“Our land reform journey goes to the heart of the debate about the kind of Scotland that we want—a fairer society and a land of opportunity. Land and tenancy reforms are not new. From hard-won rights in the early crofting acts to more recent reforms, people and communities have always been at the heart of the need for land reform. The Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 reformed agricultural tenancies to provide tenants with security of tenure, thereby enabling them to invest in and improve their farms for increased productivity and ensuring food security during a critical period. In the same way, the proposals in part 2 of the bill will enable our tenant farmers to access support, deliver climate and biodiversity goals and provide sustainable food production, thereby ensuring a prosperous future for tenant farming families.”
“The majority of people who gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee were of the opinion that the bill would not realise the aims that have been set out. How would you react to that? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Mairi Gougeon: I thank Douglas Lumsden for raising that point. I listened very carefully to the evidence that the committee received and to those concerns. There was broad support for a range of the proposed measures, but I want to ensure that the bill is as strong as possible, which is why I welcome the recommendations that the committee made in its stage 1 report. I look forward to working with Douglas Lumsden and others across the chamber as we look to strengthen the bill’s provisions.”
“In the light of the fact that rule 9.6 of standing orders has not been met, and of the fact that there has been no response from the Government in line with rule 41 of the protocol on the handling of committee business, can you confirm whether the debate that is scheduled for tomorrow can indeed take place?”
“In rule 41 of the protocol on the handling of committee business, in the section entitled “Responses to committee reports”, it is stated: “The Scottish Government should normally respond to any committee report not later than: a. two months after publication of the report; or b. where exceptionally the debate is to be within the 2 months of publication, a week before the Chamber debate the report.” The committee gave the Government advance sight of its report to try to avoid the situation that we now find ourselves in. Presiding Officer, I am sure that you will agree that those rules and protocols are in place to ensure that we can have meaningful debate and that members will have had time to read both a committee’s views and the Government’s response.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In less than 22 hours’ time, Parliament will have its stage 1 debate on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Paragraph 3A of rule 9.6 of standing orders states: “The lead committee shall report to the Parliament in time to allow the report to be published not later than the fifth sitting day before any date allocated in a business programme for the Parliament to consider the general principles of the Bill under paragraph 4.” The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee published a report on the bill as introduced on 19 March. Based on my calculations, that does not meet the timescale that is set out in paragraph 3A of rule 9.6. Furthermore, there has, as yet, been no Government response to the committee’s report.”
“I reassure him that, although there is Scottish and UK Government funding available to progress the nine projects, that funding is to leverage private sector investment, and I think that there is interest. We need to put in place the policy circumstances and the environment to make the projects attractive, and we must work with Petroineos, which, as Stephen Kerr said, has a strategic relationship to the site.”
“We have heard from the Deputy First Minister that delivering the 800 jobs will require a huge amount of private investment—I think that it is £3.5 billion between now and 2040. What engagement has the Deputy First Minister had with various businesses to gauge the appetite for such huge levels of investment from Petroineos and other companies? Kate Forbes: My colleague Gillian Martin engages regularly with Petroineos through the industry board. I, too, have engaged directly with a number of businesses that have expressed some interest in working in and around Grangemouth. The member will forgive me for not naming them, because that would be unfair and a conflict—a commercial issue.”
“He called Ferguson Marine “a terrible drain on the public finances.” He called my Government’s support “recklessly throwing taxpayers’ money away”— [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Members! The First Minister: I am not finished yet—I have lots more to share with the Parliament today. He said that “the non-stop squandering of cash cannot go on.” What we know today is that Russell Findlay has specialised in talking down the yard at Ferguson’s. We know that he has come here today just to demonstrate the political opportunism that we hear from him every week. Furthermore, we know why he is doing it: it is because the Conservative Party is being hammered by Reform, and Russell Findlay is on his way out, along with most of his colleagues. Thank goodness, and good riddance to the lot of them. Ferries 2.”
“The First Minister’s fingerprints are all over the scandal from the very beginning. He signed off a dodgy deal that has let down islanders, taxpayers and shipyard workers, who face an uncertain future. Scotland was once world leading in shipbuilding, and now we are losing CalMac ferry contracts to Poland. How can anyone trust John Swinney to repair the damage at Ferguson’s when he caused it in the first place? The First Minister: There would not be a Ferguson’s yard trading just now if I had not intervened more than 10 years ago to try to secure the future of the yard. I make no apology for doing that over all those years. I want to tell the Parliament what Russell Findlay really thinks, because he has not been straight with the Parliament in all his questions today. This is what Russell Findlay said before.”
“Russell Findlay: I am sorry, John, but we do not want the SNP to fix contracts for Ferguson’s— The Presiding Officer: Mr Findlay, I am sure that you know that we do not use only first names in the chamber. Russell Findlay: Forgive me, Presiding Officer. I am sorry, First Minister, but we do not want the SNP to fix contracts for Ferguson’s; we want the SNP to fix Ferguson’s so that it can win contracts fairly and squarely, because Scottish shipyards should be able to build ferries here, in Scotland. After nationalisation, the SNP had a duty to get Ferguson’s back into a position to win contracts legitimately, and it has failed to do so. SNP politicians want all the credit when they are grabbing headlines and launching a ferry with painted-on windows, but they never accept responsibility for what has gone wrong.”
“Which you did. The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the First Minister. I ask members who feel compelled to comment from their seats whether they are content that they are adhering to the requirements that they should be adhering to regarding their behaviour. The First Minister: The Government is being accused of rigging the process on one occasion, and now the Government is being accused of not rigging the process to make sure that the contracts for the vessels can go to Ferguson’s. That demonstrates that Russell Findlay is scraping the bottom of the barrel of political insults. He does it week after week in the Parliament, and it is a disgrace to the Conservative Party.”
“I move amendment S6M-16777.1, to insert at end: “; acknowledges that much of the NHS’s existing IT infrastructure is outdated and suffers from interoperability issues, which harm productivity and create an additional burden on NHS staff; further acknowledges that a lack of modern, effective IT infrastructure has created challenges for GP practices and patients, including difficulties in easily booking appointments or ordering repeat prescriptions; believes that the introduction of an NHS Scotland app, a universal software architecture platform and a single shared digital patient records system to enable seamless transfer of medical information within and between NHS boards, local authorities and other care providers, would be transformational for all aspects of health and social care; understands the vast potential of artificial intelligence within health and social care to accelerate diagnosis, increase productivity and improve patient outcomes; recognises the significantly greater progress made in other parts of the UK and in European nations in developing and implementing these technologies, and considers it vital to the future of Scotland’s health and social care provision that adoption and innovation of new technologies within the sector is accelerated.” 15:43”
“Patients need to trust that their data and what they are asked to be involved in will make a difference for them. The Scottish Conservatives have a vision for, and a real commitment to, digital transformation. We understand what is needed and how to deliver it. The SNP record is clear—18 years of failure, broken promises and wasted opportunities. Innovation is not just about talking about the future; it is about delivering it. On that, the SNP has failed utterly, and Scotland deserves better. Our patients, our doctors and our nurses—in fact, our entire health and social care system—deserve better.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is plenty of time in hand. Sandesh Gulhane: I will take the intervention. Neil Gray: I recognise the point that Sandesh Gulhane makes. When those who are innovating come forward with new ideas, medical devices or technologies, there is a need to make sure that we adopt them on a once-for-Scotland basis. Does he welcome the innovation around the ANIA programme, which is a pathway to make sure that innovation is rolled out across Scotland, rather than having to be approved 14 times by our 14 territorial boards? Sandesh Gulhane: I would welcome any programme that pushes good innovations and good pieces of technology that could be used by all of NHS Scotland. The cabinet secretary mentioned a triple helix, but it is actually a quadruple helix that we need, because patients need to be involved.”
“The SNP loves to talk about innovation, but its legacy is a health service that is struggling under budget cuts, digital failures and a Government that is incapable of delivering the changes that it promises. In his speech, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care forgot that this SNP Government has not created some basic IT platforms such as a platform that would allow hospitals, GPs and pharmacies to see the notes that we create. I welcome every piece of innovation that the cabinet secretary spoke of, but, in NHS Scotland, we too often hear companies telling us that, despite being approved by one health board, they have to go through the whole process again with every other board. Neil Gray: Will the member take an intervention? Sandesh Gulhane: Do I have time, Presiding Officer?”
“However, she failed to mention that it should have been delivered decades ago and failed to give a delivery timetable. Under the SNP, those innovations remain far out of reach. Why? Because the SNP does not have the competence, the leadership or the vision to deliver them. While it wastes time and money on failed projects, the real cost is felt by patients. A £1.5 billion black hole in the Scottish budget has led to delays of up to two years in crucial new facilities such as the eye hospital in Edinburgh and replacement hospitals for Fort William and Airdrie. The reality of administration under the SNP is cutbacks, delays and broken promises.”
“Sandesh Gulhane mentioned the app down in England. We do not have anything comparable up here. Is there any reason why we could not copy that app or even use the same one? Are there any technical reasons for that? Sandesh Gulhane: In my opinion, we need to be collaborating with the rest of the UK. Why on earth would we not do that, taking the best that it has and using it ourselves? We could even look to adapt it a little bit. However, this SNP Government is absolutely hellbent on doing things differently, as we have found time and time again to the NHS’s cost. E-prescribing could transform how patients access medication, and fully integrated digital records could save lives. Just yesterday, I was at a pharmacy conference at which the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, Jenni Minto, told delegates that that was a top priority.”
“The First Minister: Douglas Lumsden raises an issue related to a policy proposal of the United Kingdom Government; it is not a policy proposal of the Scottish Government. Douglas Lumsden is at the front of the queue to complain when this Government raises any issues with the UK Government’s actions, so I gently point out the complete hypocrisy that is lying at the heart of his question. The Government engages in a wide degree of consultation and dialogue with interested parties on issues related to energy transmission, and that will continue under my leadership.”