Chamber and committees

I thank the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee for its consideration of PE2095. I also pay tribute to Margaret Tracey Smith, the petitioner and co-founder of the campaign group Save Our Mearns, who is here today.

As a North East Scotland MSP, I have received more correspondence on SSEN’s plan for a new 400kv pylon route from Kintore to Tealing than on any other issue. SSEN’s consultation has been described as pitifully wanting and engagement events as box-ticking exercises. Residents have repeatedly red-flagged incorrect information. Entire communities feel disenfranchised and distrusting of a process that seems like a done deal. However, at issue is not just the way in which SSEN has conducted the consultation. This is also about consultation as part of the consenting process for new transmission infrastructure, which we know is set to increase dramatically in the coming years.

Affected communities do not believe that the Scottish Government is listening. Ministers have been paying lip service to the importance of communities in policy making, but my constituents have felt sidelined and ignored. As the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee emphasised in its report, Scotland’s electricity infrastructure planning and consents law is almost entirely devolved. However, an important point is that the Scottish Government has the levers it needs to act.

Gillian Martin, in her then role as Minister for Climate Action, responded to the petition. In that, she acknowledged that there is a problem. However, the proposed solution to give communities opportunities

“to influence the process of developing route options”

falls well short of what is needed. What about influencing alternatives to overhead lines, such as underground cables? What does meaningful consultation look like? Crucially, what will be the consequences for transmission operators who fail to follow the updated guidance? We need more detail on what the Scottish Government is proposing. I urge Scottish ministers to have formal community involvement, such as through a working group, as it formulates and implements the necessary changes.

Finally, there was an important debate on SSEN’s proposed pylon pathway. Sadly, that was a members’ business debate; it should have been a full debate in the Scottish Parliament. Fergus Ewing MSP, who sits on the committee and is here today, suggested that the Scottish Government should dedicate time to hold a full parliamentary debate. That proposal needs to be revisited and parliamentary time should be allocated to doing so as soon as possible.

For my north-east constituents, this is far from a just transition. Their voices must be heard, and the system must change.

Those were about undergrounding and offshoring. I can send my notes, convener. My suggestion was to do with influencing alternatives to overhead headlines such as underground cables. There is also offshoring to consider.

That is great. I will ask two questions then.

Both are for Carol Calder. Audit Scotland has highlighted the concerns about the lack of clarity in budget documentation on the impact of specific budget interventions on long-term health outcomes. In your opinion, how can the NPF improve transparency and ensure that budgetary decisions are closely linked to achieving measurable health improvements?

Professor Donaldson, Audit Scotland highlighted concerns about the lack of clarity in budget documentation regarding the impact of specific budget interventions on long-term health outcomes, and we have heard this morning that it is hard to see where money is being spent in the Scottish budget. How can the NPF improve transparency and ensure that budgetary decisions are closely linked to achieving measurable health improvements?

So the issue is accountability and aligned targets—that is, NHS boards not having aligned targets with the IJBs and the IJBs having split accountability.

Thank you.

A lot of what you have said this morning about prioritisation versus salami slicing and fiscal prudence has resonated with me. Some talk about austerity while others talk about fiscal prudence; however, they are at different ends of the scale. What you are saying is that we cannot go on unconstrained.

Let me give you a specific example. In the financial year 2022-23, more than 661,705 bed days were lost due to delayed discharge. That is the highest figure ever reported, with an annual cost to Scotland of a staggering £1 billion. As the IPPR has emphasised, it is a key example of not meeting the needs of our older people and, indeed, of depriving them of dignity.

A decade ago, this issue was a major priority for the Scottish Government; indeed, it basically pledged to eradicate delayed discharge. So, it was high priority; it was one of the top few things that had to be done, and the focus was on that. My question, therefore, is this: how, in your opinion, can the NPF finally ensure that funding is used effectively to address the negative outcomes that we are seeing for Scotland’s older people?

Accountability of what?

Thank you.

What has been said about it being hard to see where the money is being spent and what the outcomes are is alarming. We do not know what the outcomes are, and we cannot manage what we do not measure properly. The committee’s meeting this morning is extremely important, because we are pressing pause and asking whether things are working. Is there any way of creating some hard wiring so that we know what the impact will be of spending X amount of money on something? As I said, the situation is alarming.

In its pre-budget scrutiny last year, the committee heard that the NPF is described as the Government’s “north star”, but the underpinning route has not been adequately mapped out. Is the NPF the best way to determine outcomes-based budgeting, or is there a better way?

Thank you.