Chamber and committees

Thank you—that is helpful.

Thank you. That was a detailed question. I am interested in the context. Can the minister briefly expand on why nitrogen is so important, including perhaps in relation to greenhouse gas emissions generally? I am conscious of time, so a brief answer would be helpful.

Thank you for joining us. I am interested in the positives and what community organisations want to do in the net zero space. If there are no local authority funding streams as yet, what support can local authorities give? I am particularly interested in heat in buildings. Does the power of local organisations to influence and deliver on that offer great possibility? As has been mentioned, volunteers are the backbone of community organisations. If central funding is given mostly for capital or projects, will people capacity be an issue? If councils are interested only in what they finance—or, to be brutal, in the short term, as we have heard—what is needed for the people resource to help communities to do their projects?

I would like to hear from all three witnesses on that, if possible. After that, I will be happy to hand back to the convener.

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 thank panel members for their patience. Are there any concerns around carbon offsetting, the purchase of commercial carbon credits and the implication for land use, particularly in your vast geographies?

I come first to Simon Fieldhouse. Dumfries and Galloway Council has a stringent target of being net zero by 2025, but you have said that you need to consider offsetting residual emissions. Is that appropriate? Do you have concerns about mass afforestation, for example, or other use of land in your area? What might that mean for your plans for net zero?

I will then come to Margaret Davidson. Do you have any concerns about other councils, or organisations such as private companies, using your land in the Highland region, and about the transparency of and accounting for that? Is there a specific desire to make use of the land capability of the Highlands to meet the net zero targets of other organisations?

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.