Seòmar agus comataidhean

In that case, I will hand back to the convener.

It would be helpful if you could send the committee any examples of good projects that you have seen across Scotland.

Thank you—that is helpful.

Yes. Thank you.

I come to Professor Bell. On the decision to include agriculture in the Subsidy Control Bill, although it has previously been separate, it is clear that agricultural subsidy is a devolved matter. The bill is a result of Brexit, but I do not think that even supporters of Brexit would necessarily think that Brexit should remove, limit or reduce powers of devolution. What are your thoughts about the implications of that, particularly as Scottish agriculture is quite distinct, so we need particular subsidies?

Yesterday, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee heard from local authorities that private funding at scale will be needed along with public funding to tackle net zero. It is clear that net zero requires a streamlined subsidy scheme because, to tackle the climate emergency, state subsidy will have to be swift, smart and strategic. From your experience of devolution, does the Subsidy Control Bill lend itself to good policy making and good results for agriculture and net zero?

I am sorry, George—please accept my apologies.

Our committee is responsible for deciding whether we want to recommend that approval be given to the legislative consent motion. Therefore, despite the fact that the bill is so far down the line, it is important to all of us in Parliament.

I want to raise three specific points in relation to the bill. The block exemptions are to be replaced by streamlined subsidy schemes, which the Scottish Government will not be involved in establishing. Do the witnesses agree that some potential disputes could be removed if there was co-production?

Secondly, as we have heard, Governments in the UK subsidising particular projects could lead to disputes between them. We need some common way—potentially, that could be through common frameworks—of setting the rules of the game to minimise disputes. Is there anything in the bill that would allow for that? My understanding is that there is not. There needs to be guidance but that has not even been published yet.

The third question—this is particularly for George Peretz, although it is perhaps also for Professor Fothergill—is about individuals or individual companies taking judicial review decisions. What difference would the proposed scheme make to them? Would it make it easier or more difficult for companies that feel that they have been disadvantaged from a competition point of view?

Those are the three areas on which I have questions. Should Scotland be involved in developing the streamlined subsidy schemes? Is there a way of ensuring that the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament can be involved in the administration of intergeographical disputes? Giving the Scottish Government call-in powers, similar to those that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will have, might be a way of allowing that. What about individual companies deciding that they want to take something to judicial review? Would they be more advantaged or disadvantaged in the new scheme compared with the European set-up?

I will come first to Professor Peretz, and then to Professor Fothergill. I ask that the other witnesses indicate whether they want to come in.

I think that I should hand back to the convener now because of the time. However, I hope that, if Councillor Heddle has any comments on that, he will be able to make them in answers to questions from my colleagues.

The BEIS is, of course, in the same position, because it ends up being judge and jury, and also subsidiser.

I would like to bring in Professor Fothergill on that. I would also like to hear from Professor Bell about what the implications might be for net zero and agriculture, as they are devolved competencies.

I will pass back to the convener, as I am conscious of time. However, I am also interested in your cities’ attitudes to carbon offsetting in your own plans and in other areas, so perhaps your councils can follow up with the committee and provide that information.

I thank the witnesses for joining us. The committee is interested in your work with partners and particularly in the relationship with the private sector and private sector investment. I will go first to Adam McVey, the council leader for Edinburgh, then to council leader Jenny Laing and then to council leader Susan Aitken.

Councillor McVey, the City of Edinburgh Council plan is quite explicit in this area. Given that Edinburgh is an area of financial sector expertise, what amount of private funding are you able to leverage in just now? What projects are you targeting? What is success looking like, and what are the challenges?

Councillor Laing, you talked about your council’s relationship with BP and the hydrogen sector. Are you doing anything similar to what Susan Aitken said is happening in Glasgow in relation to leveraging in private sector funding?

Susan Aitken eloquently set out the scale of the ambition and the need to generate investable propositions. It would be helpful if she could share with us some of the experience of other countries or cities that we can draw on.

I am conscious of our time being limited, so we might have to ask for follow-up information in writing. I will go first to Councillor McVey.