Chamber and committees

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?

Thanks for that. I am sure that there is more work for this committee to do on that as well.

The third area of that work is the net zero test. We understand that the Government is now piloting a net zero test. Do you have any thoughts on the progress of that work, including on where it is beginning, what the early outcomes are and the prospects of ensuring that the whole of Government is able to apply that test whenever it is making balanced decisions?

I will ask about the joint budget review work between the Parliament and the Scottish Government. The first strand of that work has already been delivered and there is a narrative on climate alongside the budget. This year, a taxonomy has been introduced that attempts to classify areas of spend and an annex has been attached to the budget. Is that piece of work meaningful, or is there room for improvement? What is your assessment of it?

Just to be clear, though, do you see the net zero test as an absolutely critical part of how the Government mainstreams climate thinking across all departments?

I also want to ask about the role of impartial information in allowing businesses and individuals to make choices. I note that, in its letter, which came out at the weekend, the regulatory review group on heat in buildings talks about

“The opportunity for public misunderstanding”

and

“conflicting messages ... coming in from a variety of sources including the media”.

What are your thoughts on how the Government can ensure clarity of message, given the speculation that there often is in the media and given that vested interests will argue against particular policies that conflict with their own businesses? It can be quite confusing and difficult for the public to get a genuinely impartial view on what the best options might be for them.

Clearly, the risk register shows that there needs to be work on public awareness and access to impartial information.