Chamber and committees

Welcome back. The cabinet secretary has been joined by two new officials as we consider part 2 of the bill. I welcome Fiona Leslie, agricultural holdings and women in agriculture team leader, and Andrew Crawley, a solicitor at the Scottish Government.

Cabinet secretary, I start with the easy question. Why did the Government decide not to proceed with the statutory land management tenancy that had been consulted on?

The responses from people regarding whether that was a good or a bad idea were a bit more nuanced. Would it have been helpful to have a lease-forming part of the bill rather than introducing it through secondary legislation?

I am trying to find out whether there is a view; you say that you are using a different word with the same effect, which creates confusion.

I have a further question on diversification and how rent reviews take place. Farms, whether they are owner occupied or tenanted, have to look at all the options to make ends meet, because things are different. Ten years ago, a farm probably needed two farm labourers to do what one labourer can do now, because of machinery. That might throw up the issue of diversifying the use of a house, or a house might no longer be required. The bill does not cover that at all. Is that a mistake?

As Fiona Leslie said, farming is changing so quickly, so should we consider that the resources that are needed for farming should be changed? Should that be taken into account when setting rent to allow the landlord and the tenant—or the occupier and owner, if they are the same person—to make the best use of a property?

Cabinet secretary, I am sure that you would like to answer that question, but I know that parliamentarians have very strong views about introducing at stage 2 things that have not been consulted on at stage 1.

I might find myself in complete disagreement with a fellow committee member, but I ask you to bear that in mind.

Thank you, convener. I always like to come to the petitions committee because of the wide range of subjects, but this petition is particularly personal for me. It revolves around the question of safeguarding children. The simple question that we seem to be faced with is: what price do we put on safeguarding children, and do we think that what we are doing at the moment is right?

If I may, convener, I will briefly allude to a story that I have been dealing with in my constituency. It relates to a child who was approached by a teacher who was making sexual comments and innuendo to that child. The child made a complaint and left the school before they had finished their schooling. The complaint took a very long time to go through the Highland Council, and the consequence was that the teacher was found guilty. However, there were complications in that some of the investigation was prolonged by the fact that the teacher in question had had a relationship with one of the people who was investigating, and the outcome was that the child failed to complete their education.

It is actually worse than that, because it was all a secret story that resulted in the teacher being dismissed and saying, “I’ve done nothing wrong” to members of the public and the child being unable to defend themselves because nothing was made clear. I believe that Highland Council misrepresented and did not carry out its safeguarding responsibilities for that child. The council ended up marking its own homework and keeping the results quiet and not publishing them. The long-term consequences happened purely to the child.

I struggled with that and with the parents having to deal with that, because it seems so wrong. I find it difficult to accept, which is why I absolutely believe that we need an independent inquiry and an independent national whistleblowing officer, so that parents can make sure that their children are actually safeguarded in schools. At the moment, in my humble opinion, the situation favours the employee, because the employer is investigating and has a responsibility for protecting the employee, however bad they have been, from the outcomes of any inquiries.

I raised that issue with the General Teaching Council in Scotland and I did not get an acceptable outcome, which is why I believe that the committee ought to consider the matter further and push the Government harder. Frankly, it does not know who will do the role. There was a question about cost, which is unacceptable. What cost do we place on safeguarding people? What cost do we place on safeguarding our children? Frankly, I do not think that the cost is too high, because we need to get it right.

I hoped that that was what it meant, but I could not find it laid down definitively in any valuation manuals that I remembered from my days of being a surveyor, which are long gone.

I have a final, very straightforward, yes-or-no question that I have asked everyone who has come to give evidence on the bill. The cabinet secretary has said that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill aims to deliver strengthened rights for local communities and greater involvement in decision making, development that takes account of local need, more diverse land ownership, environmental purposes and modernisation of the legal framework for tenant farming and small holdings.

As it stands, is the bill going to deliver that, Rob Carlow—yes or no?

I have not taken part in our discussion on riparian management but, because Sarah Madden has mentioned it, I point out that my entry in the register of members’ interests shows that I have an interest in a salmon fishery, which involves the carrying out of such activities.

I add that so that there is no dubiety.

Kevin Stewart wants to come in, after which I will go to Rhoda Grant.

Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2025 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

Our first item of business is to decide whether to take items 3 and 4 in private. Item 3 is consideration of the evidence that we will hear today on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, and item 4 is consideration of a draft report on the Great British Energy Bill legislative consent memorandum and supplementary LCM. I am asking members also to agree that consideration of the report be taken in private at future meetings, if there need be any. To be clear, that is a contingency, and I hope that we will not need to have any more meetings and that we will be able to sign off the report today so that Parliament can consider the LCM on Thursday. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.