Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

Our first item of business is a decision on taking business in private. Do members agree to take in private item 5, which is consideration of the evidence that we will have heard on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, and item 6, which is consideration of the appointment of the chair of Environmental Standards Scotland? Do members also agree to consider our stage 1 report on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill in private at future meetings?

Members indicated agreement.

Of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, when we see how many Government amendments are lodged at stage 2. If there is nothing radical, I suggest that they will all be taken care of in one session—but we will see. Stage 2 will tell us.

Why does the bill focus on large landholdings in rural areas rather than on some other definition—say, “significant landholdings”? We have completely ignored urban areas; we are concentrating just on the countryside, where land reform affects fewer people than it might if you were to include urban settlements.

From what we have heard from the cabinet secretary, it sounds like there will be a few amendments. We will pause until just before 5 past 11 to allow a changeover of witnesses and everyone to stretch their legs.

So you see it being set in stone when the lease is entered into. Do you think that it will help people to get carbon credits?

I do not know; I just think that, if one word works, I do not understand why you would replace it with a different one simply for drafting reasons.

Mark Ruskell has a question before I go to Rhoda Grant.

Welcome back to the third part of today’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee meeting. This evidence session is a chance to consider the Scottish Government’s nomination for the chair of Environmental Standards Scotland, and I am pleased to welcome its nominee, Dr Richard Dixon, to the meeting. Appointments to the ESS board require parliamentary approval under the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021.

This evidence session is an opportunity to put questions to Dr Dixon about his vision for the role, and what qualities and experience he thinks he would bring to it, prior to Parliament considering a motion on his appointment. “Dr Dixon” is very formal. Richard, do you want to make an opening statement?

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 do not know what the deputy convener will speak about, but he wants to ask a question.

Before we leave the question on lotting, let us say that a 1,500 hectare estate that was suitable or partly forested came up for sale. If somebody decided that they wanted to invest in it or that they were going to get some investors together—whether a bank or individuals—they would know that, when they came to sell it, which they might be forced to do early, they would have to go through the lotting process, and, if the Land Commission’s proposals were in place, there could be a 90-day hold on the sale. Do you think that that would put investors off investing in that potential 1,500 hectares of woodland, which might meet the Government’s net zero targets?