A Scottish Conservative MSP, Douglas Lumsden, has recently found himself at the center of a political storm after being accused of submitting nearly 1,000 parliamentary questions in January, which critics claim wasted around £100,000 of taxpayers’ money. Lumsden, who represents the region of North East Scotland, has denied allegations that he used artificial intelligence (AI) to generate the questions. Instead, he argued that he was simply exploring new tools to hold the Scottish government to account. The controversy has sparked debates about the responsible use of parliamentary resources, with opposition parties calling for Lumsden to apologize and reimburse the cost of the queries.
The questions in question cover a wide and sometimes unusual range of topics. For instance, Lumsden asked about the number of sauce, salt, and pepper sachets available at Holyrood, the Scottish Parliament, as well as the number of straws the Scottish government had procured over the past decade. Other queries included the number of Scottish Parliament flags that had gone missing over the past 10 years, the number of flagpoles owned by the government, and their heights. He also inquired about the profit or loss made from selling jars of honey in the Holyrood shop and how the beeswax used for the Great Seal of Scotland is sourced from the parliament’s own bees. While written questions are an essential tool for transparency and scrutiny, the sheer volume and nature of these inquiries have raised eyebrows.
Lumsden has defended his actions, emphasizing that the questions were designed to uncover important information about government operations and public services. He pointed to several significant findings, such as the lack of growth in surgical training posts over the past decade, the absence of forensic pathologists based in Aberdeen, and incident statistics on the A96 road. Additionally, his questions revealed details about repairs at the Toll of Birness, the cost of overseas embassies, the replacement of signs and streetlights on the A90, and the Scottish government’s electricity costs over five years. Lumsden also highlighted the government’s fleet size, including the number of Tesla vehicles owned. He argued that these inquiries demonstrate his commitment to accountability and transparency, even if some of the topics may seem unusual at first glance.
Despite his defense, Lumsden has faced criticism from opposition parties, particularly the Scottish National Party (SNP). SNP MSP Kevin Stewart branded the questions “frivolous” and accused Lumsden of showing a “flagrant disregard for taxpayers’ cash.” Stewart emphasized that while MSPs have a duty to hold the government and parliament to account, the sheer volume of questions appeared excessive, especially during a cost of living crisis. He suggested that voters would rightfully question Lumsden’s priorities and demanded that he apologize and refund the cost of the inquiries.
In response to the backlash, Lumsden noted that other MSPs, such as Scottish Labour’s Monica Lennon and Jackie Baillie, had asked more questions during the current parliamentary term than he had. He accused critics of trying to silence him and vowed to continue scrutinizing the government, which he described as “rotten.” Lumsden’s defiance has only intensified the debate, with Scottish Labour declining to comment on his statements. The controversy has highlighted the balancing act MSPs must perform: using parliamentary questions effectively without wasting public resources.
The debate over Lumsden’s questions also raises broader questions about the role of parliamentary scrutiny and the responsibility that comes with it. While accountability is a cornerstone of democracy, the public expects elected representatives to use resources wisely and focus on issues of genuine importance. As the criticism continues, Lumsden’s case serves as a reminder of the fine line between diligent oversight and perceived frivolity in the eyes of the public and political opponents alike.
