Chamber and committees

It is very difficult for members to get members’ bills through this Parliament. It takes a long time and a lot of work. I know that because I have a member’s bill that is really up against it time-wise.

However, I am speaking in this evening’s debate because I think that it is appalling that Liz Smith has had to lodge such a motion. We have had the stage 1 debate and we should be proceeding to stage 2. Today’s debate is not really about the bill. There was a stage 1 debate in which members spoke passionately about their experiences of outdoor education when they were youngsters. I remember going to a centre that my state school had in the lake district. That gave me my love of the outdoors and hill walking, which has enhanced my life and which I have passed on to my children. Everyone can have a story like that.

We heard all about that at stage 1, when the motion on the bill passed. The issue is not whether it is a good idea or not, because it is—the Parliament has spoken. The issue is the quite extraordinary situation that we are in whereby the Government has not lodged a financial resolution, which could kill off the bill. I find it incredible that the Parliament can vote for a bill at stage 1 and the Government can stop it through process and by playing silly games. That is a disgrace.

I have very, very little time, but I will let the cabinet secretary in.

I am going to cheer up the cabinet secretary, because I have some positive things to say. Overall customer satisfaction with ScotRail is 91 per cent. That is among the best in Britain and we must accept that. Punctuality is at 92.9 per cent, which sounds pretty good although it is still not good enough. We must accept that, but we do need more investment in infrastructure, more modern signalling, track upgrades and station improvements. It is still the case that ScotRail has one of the oldest fleets in Britain. We need more electrification and a plan for battery electric trains to reduce emissions and improve service quality and we need the hydrogen that Jamie Greene mentioned.

Affordability is key. Some speakers have mentioned the removal of peak fares. I remember leading a debate here and Parliament voting to end peak fares. The Scottish Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do that, but I am glad that it has.

We need integrated ticketing—the cabinet secretary knows that I have been going on about that for what seems like years—and it must work across trains, buses, trams and ferries. I am lucky enough to live in East Kilbride, which has had some welcome investment. We have two fantastic new stations and are going to get electric trains, which is great.

Mr Whitfield is quite right. I thought that his contribution to the debate was the most passionate that I have ever heard from him about anything. He gave a fantastic speech because he feels strongly about this. He is absolutely right, as is everyone who has spoken in the debate in support of Liz Smith’s bill. We cannot have a situation in which the Parliament votes for a bill at stage 1 only for the Government then to block it without a vote. We have already had the vote, but the Government has blocked the bill, because it will not lodge a financial resolution. That is appalling. If the Government can do that on this occasion, it could do it again and again. I was astonished to find out that it could—perhaps I should have known, because I have a member’s bill and I am very concerned that someone might play silly games with it.

The Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise must come clean: she must see that she has a responsibility to the Parliament to lay the financial resolution and accept what the Parliament has already said. If there are problems, they can be ironed out at stages 2 and 3. That is what the process is for; it is not to allow the Government to block things through silly games.

Will the minister take an intervention?

On that last point, does the convener agree that the committee never had an adequate explanation as to why the limit was removed?

The answer is no—the money had been spent. That was not an oversight; it was rubber stamping.

We saw that Christmas gift vouchers had been handed out that were in breach of delegated limits. We saw expense claims without receipts, alcohol spending reimbursed and subsistence levels removed. Those were not isolated incidents. There were lavish dinners, including one dinner for two at the posh Champany Inn in Linlithgow that cost £400 and another at the Road Hole Restaurant in St Andrews that cost £370. We also learned that a London-based KC was on a retainer, at huge cost, for more than a decade.

What of the sponsorship team? Its role is to challenge, scrutinise and uphold standards, but it failed to do so. It failed to escalate concerns. It failed to intervene. It failed to protect the public interests. That is not good enough.

The former chief executive’s departure is another example. A settlement agreement was signed in haste, bypassing proper procedures and removing the possibility of disciplinary action, and more than £105,000 was paid out with no clear justification and no accountability. Incredibly, a public relations agency was appointed, at even more cost to the taxpayer, to advise on how to counter negative headlines about it. You could not make it up.

WICS has now taken steps to improve financial controls. The Scottish Government has committed to strengthening sponsorship arrangements—not before time. We must also look at WICS’s international consultancy work, which has been put on hold for now. It generated income, but it contributed to the drift in culture.

There is also the bigger question, raised already in the debate, of whether we should have the organisation at all. I think that the Government needs to look seriously at that question and consider getting rid of WICS altogether.

Parliament has the job of holding public bodies to account. We have to ensure that they operate with integrity, that oversight of them is robust and that public money is treated with the respect that it deserves. Let the report be a turning point, and let us work together to restore the standards that the people of Scotland expect and deserve.

If it is brief.

Let us be clear: this was a major scandal. We have had some robust meetings, but these were some of the most astonishing meetings that I have ever been involved in. It was not just a case of a few minor missteps; it was a catalogue of serious failings—failings in financial control, in oversight, in leadership and in culture. Those failings have cost the public purse and, more important, have cost public trust.

The reports from the Auditor General laid bare the reality. Splashing the cash was rife, and there was no one to turn the taps off. We saw that public money had been spent on overseas training courses, including £77,000 to send a staff member, who has now left the organisation, to Harvard. That was approved without proper scrutiny, competitive tendering or prior Government approval. What was the Scottish Government’s response? Retrospective approval—not because the spending met the standards of the Scottish public finance manual, but because the money had already been spent.

The cabinet secretary may be coming to it, but several members have raised the question of whether we need a water industry commission, at least in its current form. Does she agree that that is a valid question to address?