Seòmar agus comataidhean

You are absolutely correct, and you are right to raise the importance of a net zero Scotland. We have seen the developments with ScotWind this week, and there are many examples of Scotland’s globally leading position in many of the technologies and opportunities in relation to the just transition to net zero. We need to be in a position where we have the ability to provide support as we see fit within a set of rules that is transparent, clear and predictable. All of that is important.

If you are asking me whether there is a risk that, as a consequence of where we are at the moment with this bill, we will find it difficult, more time-consuming or impossible to do things that we would otherwise do, I would say that that is absolutely the case. There have already been examples where support has been delayed and we have had to deal with a more complicated process internally as a consequence of a lack of clarity on the guidance and where that takes us.

In answer to your earlier point, of course we agree that there should be subsidy control or state aid regimes in place. It is essential from a good governance point of view and from a global trade point of view that we have those rules at the global level, a bilateral level and EU level. We absolutely recognise the need for that because it works in both directions. It gives certainty to Scottish exporters as well as giving certainty to the steps that the Government and others take within Scotland. The key point is that there needs to be clarity and a process that allows those decisions to be clear in advance and allows for clear guidance about what can and cannot be done.

You have raised a few different issues. The lack of guidance suggests a lack of detail, which makes it difficult to take a view on some issues. The inclusion of agriculture, as I mentioned, is clearly a concern.

Our concern relates to the use of powers in devolved areas of competence. The UK secretary of state will have powers across the whole UK—they will have a whole list of powers with regard to the operation of the scheme, when it is up and running—but there is no equivalent power for the Scottish ministers in devolved areas. That imbalance runs against the devolution settlement.

We are concerned about that in principle, but we are also concerned about operational aspects, in relation to knowledge and understanding and the specific impact on Scotland. How events unfold in Scotland should have an impact on the nuances of any decisions that are made and on the relative importance of different decisions or subsidies, and the detailed knowledge of such matters is clearly in Scotland.

There is a point of principle about the powers and the erosion of the devolution settlement, but there is also the practical point that we are much closer to the issues than somebody in Whitehall would be.

We must have clarity. As has been said, there are questions about exactly how things will operate and there are concerns about the lack of guidance. There are also concerns that decisions would go to, and fall under the powers of, the secretary of state. Decisions will be taken at the UK level without regard to what is happening in Scotland or in other devolved Administrations.

On whether there should be more detail in the bill, and certainly in the guidelines, on there being different scope to act in different parts of the country, we support that call.

That is one of the areas in bill in which it is important to have guidelines. We have talked about the Scottish National Investment Bank. Much of what it would do would fit in that space. More detail and clarity in the guidelines as to how that aspect will be looked upon in the regime would be helpful.

To be honest, I am not fully up to speed on where we are with the membership of the unit. Hilary Pearce may have more up-to-date information.

From our point of view, we want proper regard to be given to the specific concerns of and issues in the devolved Administrations in relation to the membership of the unit. To do their jobs properly, it is essential for the unit’s members to understand the various ways in which things are done differently in the devolved parts of the UK.

Hilary, are you aware of the situation with membership of the unit?

Yes. It is already the case that we work within the interim regulations that are in place. As I said earlier, there have been examples already where we have had to make decisions on whether we feel support is within or outwith the rules, vague as they are. We will do our best to work within the legislation, but that might be more challenging, complex and difficult than it need be.

I looked at some of the evidence from last week and that is absolutely the case. There has been a shift from a much more rules-based process to one that is more open. The principles are laid down, but the most important part is how different people and organisations interpret them. The risk of organisations not taking steps that they properly should in terms of economic development and other opportunities is a concern.

I will hand over to Hilary Pearce in a minute to give a bit more detail on the conversations that our officials have had with the UK Government about guidelines and some of the specific gaps there. Suffice it to say that, although there have been a lot of conversations with the UK Government at ministerial and official levels, the reality is that the UK Government has been slow to come forward with the details of what the guidelines look like underneath the very broad-brush principles. That matters because organisations need to understand where the lines are, what is allowed and what is not allowed in various scenarios, which may not be obvious from the broad-brush principles.

Yes, it would. One power in a list of powers that the secretary of state will have under the bill is that he or she will be able to operate in devolved areas and on devolved matters. We rightly believe, as do the other devolved Administrations, that equivalent powers should be available to devolved Administrations to do exactly as you have said and to address issues. For example, if we saw a potential distortion, we should be able to refer the matter to the CMA and go through the process in the same way as the secretary of state can.

Absolutely. We are already seeing that. There are examples—I will not go into the details for reasons of commercial confidentiality—in which our legal teams have had to have a good look to understand whether we are able to move forward. They take, as they often do, a very safe view on what is and is not allowed. In the absence of the pre-authorisation process that existed previously, there is an inclination to operate on the side of safety, which means that we have to take a different view on things that we might have done in the past. That is obviously concerning.

We have made that point repeatedly at every opportunity, as I said earlier. There have already been situations relating to support for investment in which there has not been the clarity that there has been previously. The view of lawyers is to be safe rather than to move things forward, so we have had to have discussions in that context, which is concerning because it leads to delays in the processes. As you said, it has a chilling effect and slows things up. In some cases, it might prevent things from happening that otherwise would have happened, because we do not have clarity in advance on what is and is not permissible. Taking a safety-first approach could lead to advice being given that we should not go ahead with something, which is a concern.

As I said, that issue and many others, including the issue relating to the bank, have been raised repeatedly with the UK Government at official level and at ministerial level.