Seòmar agus comataidhean

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

On timescales, you indicated that it took, I think, 10 years for Switzerland to strike a similar agreement with the EU to link their two schemes together. It feels like only yesterday we were in the EU ETS, so would it really take 10 years to conclude a negotiation, or would it be a lot quicker than that, given our current alignment?

Thank you.

How much lobbying is there from particular sectors that would be disadvantaged by the CBAM? Is there a particular drive in Brussels from sectors that would have huge costs imposed on exports to the EU? I am not sure where the political drive is for linking the schemes as a priority.

I will ask about EU electricity market reform, which aims to stabilise electricity prices across the EU, especially after the disruption from the war in Ukraine. I note that your report talks about some tensions within the EU, in particular in relation to whether contracts for difference for French nuclear power constitute subsidy to a major form of energy generation, and economic advantage to France. Does that have implications for the TCA and whether there is a level playing field?

Thanks for that. I suppose that politics comes into whether there is an appetite within Europe to push through major radical reforms that might end up stretching the relationship.

I have a final question. You set out three particular types of improvements and talked about examination, exploitation and expansion of the TCA. If we were to expand the TCA and change it significantly, do you foresee the discussion about our exclusion from the single market coming back to the table, or is the review so tightly constrained that it is unimaginable that such a thing could be entertained?

It feels to me as though there is an inevitable logic about where we will end up. It might take five years, 20 years or 30 years, but all the models are about removing barriers, closer integration and deeper co-operation. It feels as if that will go only in one direction. Surely there can be only one end point, which would be our re-joining the single market. I do not know whether it just fantastical to even suggest that right now. Does Jannike Wachowiak want to come in?

I want to ask about your views on the carbon border adjustment mechanism. From reading your report, I know that there is an option for greater alignment between the UK and EU emissions trading schemes. It would be useful to get your view on the current challenges, whether the two schemes are moving away from each other in relation to carbon price, and how easy it would be, practically, to bring them together. Joël Reland is nodding.

Thank you.

I want to build on Monica Lennon’s point about where the balance of responsibilities should lie. On heat in buildings, local authorities have been tasked with devising local heat and energy efficiency strategies that will, no doubt, identify where there are opportunities for mass retrofitting of certain housing stock, establishing district heating schemes and so on. Is the governance around that working? Will the progress that is being made drive investor certainty? Is there the right balance of responsibilities, with local government identifying streets and opportunities on the ground, and national Government setting the overall strategy and a regulatory framework for investment? I realise that you probably do not want to comment on policy choices, but does that framework for dividing actions and responsibilities work?

On the role of Government support for individual householders, do you have reflections on how the Energy Savings Trust and Home Energy Scotland are operating at the moment? How effective are they, and what is their capacity, given the scale of the challenge that we face?