On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not get my device to connect; I would have voted no.

No, not at the moment.

We did our best under the circumstances, and the report added usefully to the debate, but the committee should have been spared that white-knuckle ride. I make no apology for bringing that up again, because, to be frank, I do not feel that the cabinet secretary engaged with those points when we last debated the bill two weeks ago. They were raised in good faith by the whole committee to ensure that the process works better.

I turn to the second supplementary LCM, which the committee first saw late on Monday night. We then had to produce a report in time for today’s debate. That left us with no realistic prospect whatsoever to come to a considered position on the bill amendment that triggered the new memorandum—far less take any evidence. Therefore, as a committee, we can express no collective informed view on consent.

The concerns that we raised in our earlier report bear repeating. If there are delays in information reaching the Parliament, we end up as bystanders and not participants in the process, as we should be. We end up where we are today, whereby a committee has literally gone through the motions to produce a report that meets the formal requirements of standing orders but does not meaningfully contribute to the policy debate.

I said in the previous debate, and I repeat today, that the committee is all for constructive intergovernmental discussions aimed at hammering out agreement on legislative consent. I know that the Scottish Government can be blindsided, like the rest of us, by amendments that are tabled late in the day at Westminster, as we have heard. However, in the present case, I wonder aloud—especially given the dates that the minister has told us—when Scottish ministers were first told by a UK Government minister that the amendment would be tabled. We have been told that that was more than seven days ago, and there is a seven-day gap between an amendment being tabled and an LCM appearing.

With respect, the new LCM does not provide much analysis of the new clause and its implication for devolved competence. It mainly repeats observations about supporting the broad aims of GB Energy.

Getting the LCM a bit earlier would have given the committee more chance to do the job that standing orders have given us to do, and which we have every right to do. I urge both Governments to work together to ensure that this Parliament has as much time as possible to meaningfully scrutinise LCMs. Otherwise, the risk is that the committee’s role in the consent process is reduced to that of undertaking an empty ritual, which, as a parliamentarian and convener, I find totally unacceptable.

The Cairngorm funicular railway opened in January 2023 after four years of repairs that cost £25 million. It closed months later because the repairs were defective. It has remained closed ever since. We were told in November that it would reopen for the 2024 season. The reopening date became 4 December, 20 December, early January and then early February—in time for the school holidays—none of which happened. In fact, it has remained closed. The incompetence of Highlands and Islands Enterprise has cost the taxpayers and local businesses millions of pounds. Will the First Minister support my calls for an inquiry into the fiasco and remove HIE from the management of our Cairngorm mountain after nearly six years of incompetence.

Here we go, yet again, debating a legislative consent motion on the GB Energy Bill. The first legislative consent motion was lodged in August last year. It did not set out a clear position on consent or provide much detail at all. That might have been okay if the Scottish Government had followed up on its own clear undertaking to provide a substantive update by September, but it did not. It took until late December to do so, following repeated requests from the committee to get an update by way of a letter. The supplementary LCM then followed in January, setting out progress made in intergovernmental decisions to reach a common position. It came so late in the day that the committee had the time only to take quick evidence and rush out a short report.

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

The first item on the agenda is a decision on taking business in private. Do members agree to take in private item 2, which is consideration of a draft report on the second supplementary legislative consent memorandum for the Great British Energy Bill?

Members indicated agreement.

Those investors were already concerned when they heard that the figure was 1,000 hectares. It has been suggested that the figure will be brought down to 500 hectares. Would they not then be doubly concerned—and would that not concern you? It would be more difficult to justify the measure with small-scale schemes of 500 hectares than with big-scale schemes.

Before we leave the issue of lotting, I should say that, from having done quite a lot of lotting for the sale of land in the past, I know that you really need to know all the players in the area. I am concerned that the bill would allow—indeed, would force—the Government to buy the land if the owner could not get fair market value for it. You do not seem to have factored that in. I think that it would happen every time the Government dealt with the lotting procedure, because it would be judging any such situation on what it perceived to be the right reasons for lotting, while the owner of the land would be expecting a fair market value—which we have heard is, by definition, an open market price with a willing buyer and a willing seller. The Government would be—to use your own word, Keith—“interfering” with that. Cabinet secretary, are you expecting that every time a lotting decision comes before you—if the bill passes—you will end up paying a lot more money for the land?

I do not know whether I should say this, but we are coming up to halfway through our time and we are about a quarter of the way through our questions. I am just giving you an idea of timescales; it is up to members and the cabinet secretary to work out how they respond to that comment.

Douglas Lumsden will ask the next questions.

There seems to be a lot of interest, and we are just in the first part of the session. I am nervous about saying this so early on in the meeting, but short questions get short answers, I hope, although maybe the cabinet secretary is happy to be here at 5 o’clock this evening. Monica Lennon is next.

It would, especially as carbon credits are usually based on a long period of 50 to 100 years. The applicant would be entering a lease of up to 100 years, which would then, in your word, hamstring someone for the next 100 years. The lease would set out what can and cannot be done. In my mind, that makes it a bit of a questionable activity, and I do not understand it. It would have been helpful for me to have seen a lease in the bill so that I could understand it. Once you start fiddling around with legislation after it has been passed, you distort the land rental market, do you not?