Chamber and committees

That is a yes.

In the Auditor General’s report, there is a section on Social Security Scotland that mentions the level of potential fraud. I use the word “potential” because we cannot be certain about the amounts. The Auditor General says:

“The estimated overpayments as a result of fraud and error in the benefits delivered by the DWP”—

that is, on behalf of Social Security Scotland—

“range from 0.4 to 5.2 per cent of expenditure. This means an estimated £42.4 million of overpayments were made in Scotland.”

Thankfully, that is down from £60.7 million of overpayments the previous year, but it is still a huge amount, if it is in any way accurate.

First of all, do you accept those figures? If you do, what are we doing about them? I accept that the benefits are being delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions, but those are enormous sums. What are we doing to get those sums down? Can we expect to go on having that level of fraud?

I apologise, but I will not be taking any interventions.

Many of the projects in Scotland sit with the Scottish Government’s shadowy energy consents unit, which is taking the decisions, rather than with local councils, as is the case in England.

Once NESO has shaken things out, we will need clarity from the ECU and from the Government on the criteria for agreeing to or not agreeing to developments. For example, some of the potential developments in my region are in green-belt land. What is the ECU’s stance on that? We simply do not know. We need a transparent process for involving people and showing what community benefit will look like. I hope that the Scottish Government will publish its conclusions on that soon.

The current top-down approach must end. People have a right to be involved in the decision-making process and to have their concerns addressed. We need a Scotland-wide energy strategy that sets out how many projects are required and where they are needed. That would be a positive outcome of the reforms that are to come. Battery storage will be needed, but we must use the pause that is now in place to get it right.

I welcome the debate and the fact that the motion focuses on the need to properly engage with and involve communities when deciding on energy infrastructure projects throughout Scotland. I make it clear that I accept that there is a need to upgrade and expand our energy infrastructure, because we are going to need more electricity. There are big economic benefits in the construction of that, but there are trade-offs, too.

Last week, I asked John Swinney about the number of proposed battery storage developments in Scotland. There are far more than is needed, not just here but across the UK. That is why, last week, the National Energy System Operator paused the applications process for new entrants to the connections queue from 29 January. That seems to have passed some members by today.

I do not think that there will be many MSPs who have not been contacted by communities that are concerned about potential battery developments. Communities mostly accept the need for such projects, but they want the sites to be in the right places. However, as I said, there are far too many in the pipeline. The overall transmission queue in Scotland for everything, not just batteries, is 152GW of installed and contracted generation. That is well in excess of the maximum winter peak demand in Scotland of around 5GW.

In the central belt alone, there are applications for 28GW of battery connection, which is the requirement for the whole of the UK. It is madness. That is why I have heard the phrases “gold rush” and “wild west” used when describing what is going on. That is exactly what it is, and we need some common sense.

The concerns from communities across Scotland should be taken seriously. The concentration of battery storage projects in certain areas can lead to a range of local environmental issues, such as habitat disruption, noise pollution and increased traffic during construction and maintenance, not to mention the risk of fire. Those are some of the concerns that have been raised by campaigners in my region, including those at Drumbowie, which is near Falkirk, whom I met on Saturday. They and others feel cut out of the decision-making process.

Right—and one was approved by somebody else.

Those are obvious questions to ask, but we are still not clear. I guess that if board members appear before us, the committee can ask them what the poor performance consisted of. However, you are saying that you do not know.

So it was not Mr Tydeman.

So those two payments were approved by different people.

If a detailed report is necessary—I hope that we get a detailed report—do you expect to see that in the spring?

Mr Boyle, you mentioned that the internal audit had picked up 10 high-risk areas. Can you say what they were, or at least tell us what some of them were?