Seòmar agus comataidhean

I just want to make a brief comment. It is important that the UK emissions trading scheme continues to align with the European Union emissions trading scheme. After all, as we have seen with the interaction between the Swiss and the EU schemes, the direction of travel seems to be to link the schemes at some point in the future, which will offer more certainty for business.

From what I can see, however, what is being brought forward in this instrument does not change that question of alignment. It does not alter the number of free allocations, for example, so I do not see any significant divergence arising as a result of it. That satisfies me that we have our scheme, and the EU has its scheme, but the potential to link them after the reform of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement is still on the table.

I warmly welcome the inclusion in the bill of new powers for the SSPCA to tackle wildlife crime. I thank those who have worked on that and built up the evidence base over the past 13 years. Many of them are in the public gallery. It is testament to them that the case has won through and is now in legislation.

During those 13 years, disgraceful wildlife crimes have gone unpunished in Scotland because of the inability of the police to gather the evidence to secure successful prosecutions. Welfare inspectors have had their hands tied when called to the scene of wildlife crimes. For example, I am sure that many members will be familiar with cases in which inspectors have been called to a live animal that is caught in an illegal trap, only to find themselves unable to gather the evidence of other illegally set traps nearby. Given that such crimes occur in remote areas, that evidence has often disappeared by the time that Police Scotland officers can reach the scene—sometimes, days later. SSPCA officers have an important role to play in ensuring that the evidence of wildlife crime can be included in an official police investigation and a potential prosecution.

For years, I have called for an extension to SSPCA powers. In the previous session of the Parliament, I called for a Government task force to review existing powers. On entering the Government, Green MSPs ensured that that task force would report back in time to allow its recommendations to be taken forward in the bill. That is exactly what the bill does. It sets up a proportionate way forward on SSPCA powers—not replicating but enhancing the work of the police. The SSPCA does a fantastic job at present, but the extension of its powers will enable it to fill the gap in the existing law and aid the police in their investigation of wildlife crime offences.

If the members opposite are in any doubt about the absolute professionalism of the SSPCA, I urge them to go out with an SSPCA inspector, to see them at work and to see how they discharge their responsibilities. If they do that, they will see that the powers are proportionate and that the SSPCA is a professional body.

I look forward to the SSPCA discharging those new powers in Scotland. I urge all members to reject every amendment in group 8.

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.