In response to your comment, I have to say that I think that they will do as much damage as the proposals that are being suggested. My question to you is therefore this: how do you compensate somebody? You are suggesting that there will be a different form of compensation. When I enter a lease with somebody, as people have done with me, they know that I am going to farm the land and I am not going to do anything else with it. I am not after the hope value—I am there to farm it. If they want me to leave—because they can, say, build a house on it—do you think that I should get a bit of the house value, or should I just get the value that I have lost from the farmland?

That is an interesting conundrum to leave us with. Before we leave, there are two things that I would like to say. One is a question and one is a comment. When people come in and take on new roles, I am always nervous that there will suddenly be a splurge of spending—although for you, Richard, the role will be a continuation of what you are doing. When the new chief executive officer of SEPA came in, I noticed that the first thing that happened was that a massive amount of money was spent on teaching the executive team how to deal with matters, which cost the taxpayer £175,000. Will you confirm that you are not proposing to do anything like that in your term?

I think that everyone questions the vast amount of money that is being spent on training people when they perhaps already have the skills that they need.

My other point is just an observation. I remember when Jim Martin initially came to the committee and we discussed ESS and the role that the committee would have in relation to it. I think that his comment was—I probably paraphrase it very badly—that “We look forward to working closely with the committee; we are not going to do everything you tell us to do, but we are very happy to have regular meetings and updates.” At that stage, the committee was happy with that, and it seemed an eminently sensible way of going about it. Will that be the way that you are going to continue?

That is not lotting up a community purchase, which is usually based on a whole estate being purchased with a one-off price that is then agreed and compensated for. Rather, we are talking about a specialist form of dividing out the market, which invariably results in a higher price being achieved, rather than the whole lot being sold as one.

Sorry, Presiding Officer—I did not want to make an intervention. I just wanted to indicate that I want to speak in the debate. I misread the instructions on the keypad.

I am pleased that I am now coming in at the right moment.

I am pleased to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Before getting into the detail of the devolved elements of the bill, I wish to outline some serious concerns about the process that the legislative consent motion has brought to light. We are debating the motion barely 48 hours after our committee’s report was published, which has left little time for anyone to consider our findings.

I recognise that the issues that we experience in scrutinising legislative consent memorandums are often unavoidable. We are part of a process taking place not only in this Parliament but in another Parliament, with its own deadlines, with two Governments negotiating in a way that we cannot track. Parliamentary scrutiny too often falls victim to unsatisfactory process that sidelines committees. I strongly believe that committees should never be bystanders, providing a last-minute rubber-stamp on inter-Government negotiations. We should be active participants. To that end, I urge the Governments to work harder together to ensure that the Parliament is given its proper constitutional role in the process.

Our report sets out a clear position. When the Scottish Government lodges a memorandum that sets out a holding position, it should lodge a more substantive memorandum as soon as possible. That should not wait until the final amendments are lodged. Committees need proper information at an early stage of their scrutiny, so that they can make an impact.

I will move on to the detail of the bill. Clauses 5 and 6 were the ones that raised issues. Clause 5 requires the secretary of state to

“prepare a statement of strategic priorities for Great British Energy.”

Initially, the bill required the Scottish Government to be consulted about that. The Scottish Government requested that that be changed to require its consent. Intergovernment negotiations went well, as we have heard, and the bill is to be amended in line with that request. The committee has often called for the Governments to work together, so we are pleased to see that co-operation, although I reiterate that we should have had a much clearer statement much sooner than we did about what the Government was pursuing.

Clause 6 of the bill grants the secretary of state the power to issue directions to GB Energy. The committee and the Scottish Government have received assurances that that power would be used only rarely, in limited circumstances—for example, in relation to national security—but the bill provides no such limitations.

We have been assured that the UK Government will consult the Scottish ministers before issuing directions that engage devolved interests. The Scottish Government says that it is content with those assurances, but the committee remains concerned. If both Governments agree that the Scottish Government should be consulted, we are unclear why such a provision has not been included in the bill. The inclusion of such a provision would provide a firm, permanent legal footing, as opposed to a non-binding assurance from the Government of the day. Our report calls on the Scottish Government to request that change in whatever time remains of the process.

With that one reservation, the committee agreed, by a majority, to recommend that consent be given. However, what we have seen underlines the importance of ensuring that committees are involved at an early stage so that their concerns do not end up being sidelined because we have run out of time. I urge the Scottish Government and the UK Government to do what they can to improve the process in the future.

[Made a request to intervene.]

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.

Let me help the Deputy First Minister in answering that question. The monthly under-recovery, as quoted by Ferguson Marine, is £1 million per calendar month. It has been suggested that it costs £20 million a year to run Ferguson Marine if there is no recovery of any works. That is £84,000 per job. How will the Scottish Government fund that if it does not give the small vessels contract to Ferguson Marine?

To ask the Scottish Government what the total monthly running cost of Ferguson Marine is. (S6O-04285)