Chamber and committees

I, too, thank the committee for the hard work that was put into the report.

We are here to discuss audits of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, but it would be remiss of me not to reflect on some other aspects of water in Scotland, given the public coverage that there was over the recess. In case colleagues do not recall it, I remind them that the UK environment secretary, Steve Reed, made some very daft comments—in my opinion—about Scottish water. He claimed wrongly that pollution levels are worse in Scotland than in England. I would expect better from a UK minister than to share such misleading claims, to talk down Scotland and to talk down the value of Scottish Water being in public hands in the process.

I am not going to suggest that everything to do with water in Scotland is perfect. Clearly, we have a report in front of us that recognises what has not gone right—in this case, in the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. However, I want to make clear a few things that are undeniable. In Scotland, we have less pollution in our waterways than England has. A recent report found that 66 per cent—two thirds—of Scotland’s water bodies are of good ecological status, compared with just 16.1 per cent in England and 29.9 per cent in Wales.

Moreover, water bills are lower. Water bills in Scotland average just £490 compared with £603 across England. In addition, Scottish Water being in Scotland’s hands is working because public ownership means not having to pay out millions in dividends. As a result, it costs folk less to have the cleaner water that we have in Scotland.

My final point is that tap water in Scotland is tastier. I have tried tap water in other places and it has not been that great. When we get to a tap in Scotland, especially in the north-east and the Highlands, and pour ourselves a glass of cold, crisp Scottish water, we soon find out that it is delicious.

Having covered that off and said my piece about Scottish Water, I want to go on to the substance of the report. It highlights a number of failures at the Water Industry Commission for Scotland—which I am going to call WICS from now on, as I just stumbled over saying it. There were a number of financial management and governance failures at the commission; there was retrospective authorisation of high-cost training; there were improper staff gifts; there were weak financial controls; there were cultural issues with bullying; and there was a lack of challenge to leadership. All of those things were unacceptable. We expect our public bodies to have the highest standards, and that was not the case here.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government has acted decisively by strengthening the WICS board, resetting the organisation from the top down and appointing interim members to get the organisation on a path to rebuilding public trust. The report is part of that process, too.

My apologies.

I thank the Public Audit Committee for taking the time to consider all of this and for asking the difficult questions that need to be asked when public money is not being spent properly. I want Scottish Water, WICS and every aspect of water in Scotland to remain something for us to be proud of—well run, affordable, delicious and publicly owned. I hope that the work that we have seen from the Scottish Government and the committee to help WICS with its reset will ensure that, for years to come, Scotland’s water remains in Scotland’s hands.

I am talking about the energy industry in Aberdeen; the member has gone off topic just slightly.

The climate crisis and the efforts to tackle it will affect everyone but, with the right investment and support, Aberdeen will lead Scotland and the world in the move to net zero. As I am standing here now, more than 30,000 industry professionals and our Deputy First Minister are attending the Offshore Europe conference in my Aberdeen Donside constituency. The focus of that event is the future of the energy industry, which is a priority for all of us, especially those of us in the north-east.

The motion talks about being hampered by the policy decisions of the UK Government, and the north-east and the energy industry represent probably the clearest example of where it is getting it wrong. It has been far too quick to announce a windfall tax only for energy companies, it has been far too quick to increase it and it has been far too quick to remove investment incentives, while it has taken far too long to back and invest in the Acorn project. I suspect that we will be waiting a very long time to see any meaningful amount of jobs created within Great British Energy. The UK Government has utterly failed to take any meaningful action to save energy jobs in Scotland, be that in the north-east or at Grangemouth.

The Scottish Government has stepped up, not just with the £500 million just transition fund but with a range of local investments, such as the millions of pounds that it has committed to Aberdeen’s first green academy building in Hazlehead, which conveniently ties in with all of the Scottish Government’s priorities.

I turn to the fourth and final priority: delivering and sustaining good-quality public services. I grew up with the idea that a welfare state would support me from the cradle to the grave. Although the welfare state has been eroded by 15 years of austerity, it is still worth fighting for, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government is delivering in the same spirit. From baby boxes and best start grants to funeral support payments and everything in between—free university, free doctor appointments and a helping hand when folk have children—those are the Scottish Government’s priorities. I can see the difference that they make to people’s lives as the Government works towards and delivers on those priorities every day.

In contrast, I am not so sure that I see what the UK Government’s priorities are, and I am unsure whether Keir Starmer does, either. However, I can see what the UK has delivered for people: a proliferation of food banks, record levels of inequality, reduced opportunities, Brexit, attempts to sow division and two decades of wage stagnation. I look forward to folk getting to choose between a Scottish Government that is focused on delivering for them and a broken Britain that looks to be in its dying days.

I will take a quick intervention, although time is quite tight.

After a long recess away from Parliament, it is good to be back talking about our priorities and about what matters to my constituents and to folk across Scotland.

The Scottish Government has four key priorities: eradicating child poverty; tackling the climate emergency; growing the economy; and sustaining public services. In Aberdeen we can see how those four priorities are interlinked and are combining to provide one single clear direction for the future of our city and our country. Let me talk through them in turn.

We might think that the value of giving every child the best start in life and eradicating child poverty would be clear for everyone to see. However, if we truly want to protect children, we must start by protecting them from poverty. Instead of that, we have a Labour Government that is still persevering with the two-child cap, which is forcing thousands of our bairns to go to bed at night hungry. Thank goodness that we will take a different path in Scotland, and that the Scottish Government will abolish the two-child cap. With that, alongside the baby box, the Scottish child payment, best start grants, 1,140 hours of free childcare a year and a continued investment in our nurseries and schools, we are ensuring that every child gets the best start in life.

The second priority involves the climate emergency. Some may say that that is an issue for the world that our young folk will inherit. However, in Aberdeen—Europe’s energy capital and the future net zero capital of the world—the journey to net zero has already started and is already impacting on folks’ lives. Many young folk have a parent who works in the energy industry. If those jobs are not there when they grow up, there is a big question mark over what jobs there will be.

The third priority is growing the economy. In Aberdeen, as I have already alluded to, the energy sector is the biggest part of our economy. Thousands of folk in our city work for energy companies and thousands more work in the supply chain, and the money that they spend supports a high proportion of other local jobs. For decades, the fortunes of Aberdeen have risen and fallen with oil prices and, throughout that time, we have considered what a future without oil and gas might look like. Whether it is phased out, is forced out or runs out, there will come a time when Aberdeen no longer has an oil and gas industry, but being home to a workforce that is so highly skilled offers us a golden opportunity to establish ourselves as a net zero capital.

I am not asking about the destinations; I am asking about your hotel facilities and the bookings that you had. Did you think that the amount that was spent from university funds was value for money for your travel and booking arrangements? Did you feel that the university was getting value for money for those bookings?

I understand that you had that agreement, but who would have been ultimately responsible for authorising the bookings and flights when you went to those countries? Who would authorise your expenses?

Did you think that they were value for money?

What I am getting from that is that you had an agreement with the chair of court that you would travel business class. Is that what you said, Professor Gillespie?

Did you not, at any time, question them? If a member of my office team booked first-class travel for me—which would not be allowed under Parliament policy—my first response would be, “Hold on a minute. That’s very nice, but I have to follow the public pound and it’s not appropriate for me to travel that way.” Did you not think, at any point, that you had to follow the university pound? It was money that the university could have used for other things.