It is small.

That is fine.

I will move on to my second question. My colleague Ruth Maguire mentioned that children as young as seven have accessed gender services at Sandyford. That is from a total of 352 children. How are the parents and families of children and young people involved in the holistic person-centred care approach that you described? What role will they have as the delivery of gender services changes?

I would like to know about the current model and the new model.

My third question is for Tracey Gillies. We have heard from you about the massive pressures that CAMHS providers are under, and the fact that patients sometimes have to wait for years to be seen. A number of GPs have told us that, under the 2018 general medical services contract, they do not have the resource to treat patients with gender dysphoria. They say that they just do not have the skill set, which is why they are referring patients. In your view, is Scotland equipped to move towards a more holistic approach to treating young people who access gender services? If not, what needs to change?

No, that was very clear. Thank you for your candour. It is a huge issue for Scotland to recognise that a service that has grown organically is under significant pressure and that it is a complex exercise to move CAMHS provision that is under such massive pressure to already stretched NHS boards.

Tracey Gillies, are you saying that much more work needs to be done on exploring the impact on someone who takes suppressant hormones? For example, it could impact on childbearing, and there have been cases of incontinence and detransitioning. Are you saying that more work needs to be done on the impact?

My question is for Rhoda MacLeod. To what extent do you believe the criticism that truly holistic care is lacking in Scotland?

You said that organic growth had happened in a very short time. Am I right in assuming that holistic and person-centred care have been lacking because the waiting list has grown so quickly?

The north-east is experiencing a dramatic increase in new transmission infrastructure to serve offshore wind. The affected communities deserve proper consultation, but that has been far from what has happened. For residents who bear the brunt of the new infrastructure, it feels like an unfair and unjust transition. As the Scottish Government looks to improve the planning and consenting regime for renewables—which the First Minister described as “making consenting faster”—is the First Minister willing to meet community representatives and campaigners to listen to their concerns and ensure that they are not left behind?

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.