Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mainly because of the exemptions, there is a very limited impact on Scotland-based operators. Approximately 96 per cent of the costs are expected to fall on international operators. We did extensive work with island communities and operators, and, as a result, we very quickly decided to exclude fishing and fish processing vessels and lifeline ferry services for island and peninsula communities, for the reasons that I set out in my statement.

I cannot pre-empt what the review will say, but the reasons for having the exemption in the first place are to do with the islands impact assessment and the lifeline nature of the ferry services. I do not think that that will change, but the review will take place.

You would need to speak to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport about that, because I do not have that information. I do not want to get into something that is not in my particular portfolio. If you are talking about fishing vessels, Ms Gougeon will have information about incentivisation in that regard. However, I can certainly find that out from those portfolio areas.

I would need to look at the climate change plan. It is a draft plan at the moment. If we have the figures that are associated with this particular instrument and if they are not already in the climate change plan—I do not believe that they are—then we could, as we are finalising the plan, and if the figures are large enough to make a difference to the plan, put them into it.

A business regulatory impact assessment—BRIA—has been done for the instrument. The ETS instrument is designed to protect businesses that have high emissions but that are performing a necessary function in producing what they produce. Free allocations are given to high-emitting businesses that industry needs to operate. Also, the CBAM is coming into force. That will put additional levies on top of imports that are produced in countries that do not have a similar ETS, which will further protect businesses.

All the high-emitting industries in Scotland have substantial free allocations associated with them. When it comes to their competitors outwith the UK, the new mechanism that the UK is bringing in—the CBAM—will be phased in as the free allocations drop, which will effectively protect businesses from competition from imports that come from countries that do not have the same emissions trading function or procedure that we have in the UK. [Gillian Martin has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] If we did not have that, that would put businesses here at a disadvantage.

Yes. If they are high emitting, there are more free allocations associated with their business.

When it comes to their competitors outwith the UK, the new mechanism that the UK is bringing in—the CBAM—will be phased in as the free allocations drop, which will effectively protect businesses from competition from imports that come from countries that do not have the same emissions trading function or procedure that we have in the UK.

When it comes to their competitors outwith the UK, free allocations will gradually drop from when the new mechanism that the UK is bringing in—the CBAM—is implemented, which will effectively protect businesses from competition from imports that come from countries that do not have the same emissions trading function or procedure that we have in the UK.

Obviously, the ETS and the CBAM are UK Government measures, although the four nations are kept in the loop by the UK Government on the direction of travel.

Obviously, the CBAM is a UK Government measure, although the four nations are kept in the loop by the UK Government on the direction of travel.

It is not really in my gift to say what the UK Government will do. Obviously, the ETS and the CBAM are UK Government measures, although the four nations are kept in the loop by the UK Government on the direction of travel.[ has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

The ETS is not new. The UK ETS was a replacement for the EU ETS as a result of Brexit—it was brought in by the previous UK Government to replace that mechanism. That was because it was understood that, if we did not have a replacement, that would leave businesses vulnerable. There has been a long period since the end of the previous session of Parliament, when I was sat in the chair that you are in now. At that time, five years ago, we were looking at the implementation of a UK ETS to replace the EU one, because we were exiting the EU. That is a great deal of notice. I guess that the uncertainty at that point, five years ago, would have been about whether the UK ETS was going to work but, of course, it has been working for the past five years.

I do not see that the instrument would have any effect on the cost of fertiliser. It is difficult for me to predict what will happen in the markets, but, as a result of this instrument, the free allocation to businesses that manufacture in high-emitting areas in the UK will continue to be protected. Obviously, quite a lot of fertiliser is imported. In fact, I think that the vast majority of fertiliser is imported. Whatever happens in other countries will be the thing that drives any price increases. Of course, as a result of the CBAM, there is a fairness associated with any imports that come from countries that do not have an ETS. A fertilising company that was set up in the UK would not be put at a disadvantage because another country from which we were importing fertiliser had the advantage of not having to be involved in an ETS.

I will move it today because not doing so would have an implication for all four Administrations. I would like to move forward.