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

I have no need to sum up.

Motion agreed to.

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.

I could not possibly answer that. I do not know what will make changes to the cost. There will be other factors involved in the cost of fertiliser, not least the cost of fuel, which has an impact on the cost of anything that is imported.

I find it impossible to say with any certainty what it will do to the cost of anything. My officials can maybe come in and assist me, but, according to the business impact assessment that has been done on the instrument, it is about protecting businesses in the UK. There are many factors that would increase the cost of fertiliser, not least energy security issues or global impacts, but I do not see the instrument making any material difference in that respect.

I am not entirely sure that this particular instrument does anything to incentivise or otherwise. It is not really about that. As Lucy has just said, the main thing is the phasing out of the free allocations as the CBAM is brought in. If there is any incentivisation, it is about the fact that, for example, we are not disadvantaging hydrogen producers in this country in favour of importers of hydrogen that comes from more high-emitting processes. I really do not think that the SI does anything in the way of incentivisation. It really is about protecting and, as has been pointed out, giving fair notice of the CBAM implementation and the gradual phasing out of the free allocations in a way that will not put businesses at a disadvantage.

I will bring in Norman Munro, because he knows all the vehicles that might be available to the UK Government. However, the error does not impact the working of the SI at all—it just duplicates the meaning of another term.

Norman, could you take us through the solutions that have been presented?

Before I speak to each amendment in connection with my portfolio, I will say that consideration has to be given to the level of reporting duties and publication requirements that are being proposed through amendments in this area. Although such duties can have a place, such obligations can divert substantial time and resources away from delivery and the action that we all want to see. There needs to be a clear assessment of whether there are already reporting requirements in place and whether duplication is a possibility.

In diverting capacity from bodies of civil servants who are required to produce reports or other types of ancillary documentation, we must always ask ourselves whether we are making best use of their expertise and effort. I am repeatedly told by members of public bodies and, indeed, MSPs how overstretched they are, so we have a duty to take into account any administrative burden that we might unnecessarily place on them.