Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks, convener. Unlike the other members of the committee, I did not manage to join the visit, as I had another committee to attend. However, I know the hill. I am not a skier, so it is the other activities in the area that I have done; as Gordon Bulloch said, there are lots of other things to do, which do not require you to go to the very top.

My question is about the alternatives and what future planning there has been. You argue in your report that the 2021 master plan is not a master plan in the planning sense. It would be good for the committee to hear what you think is missing from it. What should be there, and what could make it a useful long-term planning document?

Just to be clear, would the long-term alternative to a funicular be chairlifts—which you can get skis, bikes and anything else on to—and not a gondola lift?

No, I do not.

Preferably from the seas of Scotland.

Professor Belch talked about LEZs. It is important that we do not miss the opportunity to hear evidence about the health benefits of LEZs. In Dundee, where Professor Belch and I both live, there is a relatively tight LEZ, but people still say that we should get rid of it because it is not going to have a benefit. It would be good to hear some of the evidence from Scotland and from further afield about why we should not only have LEZs but expand them.

My question follows on from the discussion about food security. It is possible for us to eat less meat in order to have a healthier diet while ensuring that more of the meat that we buy comes from this country. That relates to the point that Brian Whittle made about the fact that meat that is produced in Scotland will have less of a carbon impact on the atmosphere than meat that has come from Australia. I am concerned about the arrangements that, in effect, allow massive amounts of lamb in particular to come all the way from the other side of the world, which cannot be good for the climate.

I want to ask about food sustainability more widely. When we are talking about meat, we are talking about protein. The fields around Dundee produce massive amounts of beans and peas. Most of the broad beans that are available in supermarkets come from the fields around Dundee. That is a source of protein that has a huge health benefit as well as an environmental benefit.

The other source of protein that we do not talk enough about but which we should talk about, in which Scotland is right at the top when it comes to production, is fish. We are encouraging people who eat meat to eat more fish, as it is really healthy.

I invite comments from the witnesses on that, starting with Jill Belch.

Once you have had time to look through the draft business case, I am sure that the committee would be pleased to hear your views on how the model is working. It is obviously really important, as we heard, not just to UHI Perth but to other colleges across UHI.

I will go to Vicki Nairn or Mike Baxter—whichever of them feels that it is most appropriate to comment—to give us a bit more detail on what the new model would mean. Concern is certainly being flagged, in particular—but not only—by the Educational Institute of Scotland, that the model potentially removes scrutiny from the remit of the Auditor General and the Parliament. The EIS has said that, in its view, that would basically end public sector incorporation.

I guess that we would like to hear some assurance that that is not the intention of the proposals, and a bit more on what it is that you are trying to do and how you are trying to do it, bearing in mind the comments that Jacqui Brasted just made about how those services are funded.

Thanks very much to both of you.

We are encouraging shared services across all public services in order to better use public funds and to make sure that those funds are focused at the chalk face, to coin a pun. It is important to have clarity that accountability and transparency will continue in any new system. I encourage you to continue to have that discussion, particularly with the trade unions, which I know will be articulating that point. As politicians, we are keen to have transparency so that there remains accountability for public funds to the Parliament and the Auditor General.

Finally, I turn to Perth College—this is maybe a question for Lynn Murray. We have heard a different view of what the top slicing is for. When Graham Watson spoke to us, it sounded almost as though the top slice was a huge sum of money that was paid and just disappeared, with colleges getting nothing back for it, but we have now heard that it is used for shared services. Will the new model work better? Do you have confidence that the college’s engagement will get you to a point that works for the college as well as for UHI?

You have covered the question that I was going to ask about digital exclusion.

Paragraph 128 notes that, although the app is quite limited just now, there is potential for it to do much more. To some extent, it goes back to the point that my colleague made about A and E departments being used appropriately. One of the big things that we have in our toolkit is the pharmacy first service, which has now been adopted in the rest of the UK following the launch in Scotland many years ago. In order for that service to be really effective, pharmacists need to be able to access people’s health data. Pharmacists are itching to be able to work to their max and take the pressure off the rest of the system. Will the app allow for that to happen?

The convener mentioned that we took evidence from the previous incumbents, in particular Graham Watson, the former chair of Perth College. As part of that evidence, he talked about the risks of top slicing, and I want to talk about that area. To paraphrase him, he said that if the top slice had not been at the level that it was, Perth College would not have had a £2 million deficit and would not have been in a crisis management situation.

That is quite a stark thing to say; he is suggesting a really serious implication of UHI’s model of funding. We heard from many people who agreed that the funding model is no longer fit for purpose. The Education, Children and Young People Committee received a letter from UHI agreeing that the top-slice model was

“no longer fit for purpose”

and that it would be proposing “a full business case” for “a new operating model” to the Scottish Funding Council in December last year.

This is probably a question for Tiffany Ritchie. Have you received that model and, if so, have you managed to form a view on it?