 Welcome to the 29th meeting of 2018 of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, I would like to remind everyone present to switch off their mobile phones, as they may affect the broadcasting system. The first item on the agenda for the committee is agreed to take item 3 in private. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The second item on the agenda is for the committee to consider a proposal by the Scottish Government to consent to the UK Government legislating using the powers under the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 in relation to the UK statutory instrument proposals for the greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme amendment EU exit regulations 2018. We welcome Mary Gougeon, minister for rural affairs and natural environment in her first appearance before the committee. The minister is joined by her officials Claire Hamilton, deputy director head of decarbonisation in the Scottish Government, Alice Mitchell, senior policy officer, emissions trading, CRC, NF gases, consumers and low carbon division for the Scottish Government and Ross Loveridge, head of the EU exit, consumers and low carbon division of the Scottish Government. We will move on to questions now and I will start with some general questions around the process and what has been happening between the two Governments on this issue over the last couple of years since the Brexit vote. Minister, what discussions have the two Governments had over that period on the implications of Brexit and no-deal Brexit and participation on the ETS? As I am sure the committee will be aware, I know that you have seen some of the correspondence that has gone from the Scottish Government, well between the Scottish Government and the UK Government as well. Over the course of the past two years, we have repeatedly tried to engage with the UK Government in order to try and find a solution to that or look at potential ways forward in the future. Our stated preference right from the start has always been to remain part of the EU ETS. We think that that would be the best way forward, but, as yet, we have had no formal ministerial discussions with the UK Government despite our repeated requests for such formal discussions to try and move this forward. That has been incredibly frustrating, as I am sure you can imagine. I know that you have been copied into the most recent correspondence between the cabinet secretary for the environment and the joint letter from her and from the Welsh Government as well. To the UK Government, outlining our serious concerns with some of the proposals that we have seen suggested may come forward, but, as yet, we have no further detail on that because we have not had any of those discussions despite our insistence that those take place. We know that a similar situation with engagement with stakeholders and businesses from the ETS will affect. The UK Government does not seem to have had that stakeholder engagement. Has the Scottish Government had stakeholder engagement around that? To be honest, there have been situations in which we engage with industry anyway. We have not had any formal discussions with industry. Any discussions that have taken place have been informal and through those other forums that we have, purely because we are dealing with hypothetical situations here. Obviously, you have seen the proposals that there could potentially be a carbon tax. As we have stated, our preference is that we do not want to see a no deal because we think that that gives us cause for serious concern. However, there are options for the way forward, and our stated preference is to remain part of the EU ETS. It is hard for us to engage in any meaningful discussions with industry when we are dealing in hypotheticals and when we have not been able to have those discussions with the UK Government too. We would need to have some more of that information and to see how we would work together on a way forward before we can have any wider discussions around that. The lack of engagement so far has been particularly disappointing because we have been able to work with the UK Government in terms of the EU ETS system and how that has operated in the past. For us to be in this stage where two years down the line from the vote we have not had any engagement where some correspondence has been plainly ignored, is extremely frustrating for us. Are there any circumstances in which the proposed SI may come into force at a later date other than the event of a no deal in March 2019? For example, if a deal, including the EU ETS, was struck from March 2009, could it come into force at a later date and be delayed until the end of a transition period? The SI is purely dealing with a no deal scenario, so it would come into effect on March 29. If we end up in a situation where a deal is made and we are still hopeful that that will be the ultimate scenario here, then the SI would not be needed in that respect. I hope that by that time, if we had a transition deal, we would still be part of the EU ETS throughout that time. I hope that that would also give us the time to work on a potential way forward during the time that we are in that transition. You will know that, ahead of this and before our recess, we put a lot of questions to the Government ahead of this. At that time, we did not have access to the technical notice. The SI's notification, received by Parliament before the technical notice on meeting climate change requirements, was published by the UK Government on 12 October. That included significant information and policy intentions regarding the ETS and event of a no deal. Has the Scottish Government discussed with the UK Government better co-ordination in the future so that, ahead of our deliberations and our scrutiny and your scrutiny, that things are a little bit more aligned in terms of technical notice being delivered at the same time as an SI? Absolutely. I can completely understand the concern of the committee in that respect because, ideally, we would hope to give the committee the correct time to be able to look at the SI's and examine the technical notices as thoroughly as possible. We have made clear—I have taken part in meetings with DEFRA in the past—that we have outlined our position in terms of parliamentary scrutiny and the processes that we have to go through in the Scottish Parliament. We have made that clear right from the outset and all the way through any discussions and deliberations. For us to be in that position, it is incredibly frustrating from the Scottish Government perspective, but I know from a parliamentary perspective as well, because we want to allow you the time to be able to scrutinise. In terms of the technical notice itself, it is a UK Government publication. We would only give it 24 hours' notice before the technical notice was made available to us, which is why we were not able to get that information to the committee itself any sooner. However, we continue to inform and tell the UK Government—as I say, they have known about this the whole way through the process anyway—and the obligations that were held to in the Scottish Parliament. At the moment, we are working to the UK Government deadlines. We have made clear that we need to be able to give the Scottish Parliament the 28 days' notice that it requires to be able to scrutinise any SIs that come forward. We will, of course, continue to make any information that we receive from the UK Government available to the committee as and when that comes in. Occasionally, as I have mentioned, that is hard for us to do when, in ourselves, we have not been given the final SIs or we only get 24 hours' notice before those things are drafted or published. Given that we gave your earlier answer around when this comes into force, should we be in anoddial situation? We have moved requirements on UK operators to surrender allowances for the 2019 calendar year, but we have presumably not come into force until the end of March 2019. Given that it comes into effect in the event of a no deal, how are operators expected to behave in order to meet the requirements between January and March 2019, given the lack of certainty over continuing obligations to surrender allowances? I can completely understand any concerns that industry would have in this regard and the continued uncertainty that hangs over this whole situation. Obviously, we are this SIs deals purely with a no deal scenario and, of course, we are not going to know about that until neither of the time that it comes comes anyway. In terms of the SIs itself and in the event of a no deal, the UK Government has already changed the reporting dates and made those slightly earlier in March 2019. In terms of monitoring and evaluating the emissions information, that will still take place as normal. The SIs would not change any of that reporting information, but that would obviously have an impact on the if industry have banked allowances that they intend to use in the future if they have not been able to use those so far. I see that the advice from the UK Government has been for industry to set up registry accounts on other member states, so that they would still be able to sell the allowances that they have in the meantime. Of course, we are not going to get any more clarity on that until we see how things develop over the course of the next few months, which, again, is incredibly frustrating from a Scottish Government perspective, but I completely understand that that will be very frustrating for industry, too. I am not asking for insight into any legal advice that the Scottish Government may have received, because I know that I will not be told it. It is perfectly proper that that will be taken forward by the UK Government and the Scottish Government as a backstop to whatever may happen in the future. However, given that the EU ETS membership of it does not require membership of the European Union, has the UK Government indicated that it is its view that the invoking of article 50 and progression to departing the EU without a deal does of necessity mean that the UK leaves the EU ETS? If we are no longer members of the EU, we would not be able to be members of the EU ETS. I know that there are some other examples where other countries outwith the EU are linked to the EU ETS system. For example, countries that are within the EU ETS. I believe that Switzerland has a system that is linked to the EU. In an ideal situation, as stated in previous responses, we want to remain part of the EU ETS. Failing that, another potential option could be a UK ETS system, which eventually links in to the EU system. However, we have seen issues with that from other third countries. I mentioned Switzerland, but for them to be able to link in to the EU ETS system took about seven years for them to be able to negotiate that and to make that work. We would want to be part of the EU ETS because it is a wider market. I believe that there are 11,000 installations across 31 different countries. In terms of the trading of allowances, there is a much bigger market there than what there otherwise could potentially be. That would be our preference to remain as part of that. There are other options for third countries, but I think that what is so frustrating about that at the moment is that if we end up in an ideal scenario and we end up leaving the EU ETS, we would be leaving it at a time when other world markets are opening up and the EU is looking to link in to an even bigger ETS system and linking in with other countries around the world. We really would be starting to tackle emissions on a global scale and we would be leaving it just at the precise time when all that work is a way to take place. I am correct in saying that there has been trade between the EU ETS and other schemes. For example, I recall that Japan bought allowances from, and I just cannot remember which Baltic state I think it was in Estonia, but it might have been in Lithuania, whichever one it was, several years ago. It is not a closed system, is it? Even if we were outside— No, I will ask Ross to respond to that one. Have I pressed the right button? No, do not press. We will have that organised for you. Okay, thank you very much, Mr Stevenson. Yes, there is provision within the EU ETS directive to enable credits from other parties that would have to be recognised under the Kyoto system and under the UN system, so you cannot just credit anything within the EU ETS. It needs to be verified and that is the importance of the verification procedure. In terms of the SI, before the committee today, it will ensure that verification of emissions continues to take place, so the EU system requires credit verified emissions reductions from third parties and from third countries. As the minister was saying, the provision that is being made under article 6 of the Paris agreement under the UNFCCC is very much the basis for an architecture for a global carbon market and for the linking of carbon markets across the world. Because the EU has pioneered emissions trading as the world's largest carbon market over the last decade or so, the EU is very much at the forefront of those discussions with third parties countries that you have mentioned, such as Japan, such as Korea and some of the states within the United States, such as California, more locally within the EU's neighbourhood with countries such as Switzerland. Consequently, as the minister has stated, we would be in a position where we would be unable, if the UK leaves the ETS system, to be part of that linking unless there was an equivalent UK emissions trading scheme. The question is really around, as the minister stated, the time that it would take to enable that link with the EU system but also potentially with other countries who may, in terms of the priority that they attach to linking, want to link with the EU market first. Matt Ruskell. I feel a sense here of just jumping into the dark that there's very little analysis or risk assessment here as to what the options or what the consequence of the options might be for the Westminster Government making particular decisions on the back of this SI. I've heard some analysis that UK Government may need to revise its interim climate targets for 2030. That really cuts right across what we're doing in this Parliament, right across what's being discussed with the IPCC and the UK Climate Change Committee. Have you seen, minister, any kind of impact assessment or assessment of options around a replacement to the ETS or a continuation of the ETS in some form around what that will actually do to carbon reduction in the UK or Scotland? No, and as far as I'm aware, those impact assessments and that kind of engagement that we would have hoped or expected to have taken place so far hasn't happened, which of course is extremely, extremely worrying for us. I think it is particularly frustrating because we're almost left hanging on the word of, I mean, for example, we don't know if a carbon tax is going to be introduced. We'll have to wait and hear what comes out of the budget discussions next week, so it is incredibly frustrating being in that position where we've been trying to get that information and then just being left to wait on any public announcements that are made to see what is actually going to be implemented or introduced. I believe that Claire Perry, the Minister for Energy and Climate, was in front of one of the House of Lords committees yesterday, and I think that she had suggested that she envisages the ETS to be the best way forward, but yet that contradicts what comes out of other UK departments. Again, that's just something that we picked up from a public committee session, and that hasn't been any part of discussions that the UK Government have undertaken with us. Again, this is something that we've been trying to initiate this process for two years. In that two years, we could have been in a situation now where we had all these impact assessments that could have taken place, that engagement with industry could have taken place, and we could be in a much stronger position now with a proposed way forward. However, as I said, those discussions haven't taken place, and we're now faced being in a situation where something could be imposed on us without any discussion with us as to how that will affect industry in Scotland. Is it the case that the impact assessments haven't been done or they just haven't been shared? I really couldn't answer that question. As far as I'm aware that those impact assessments aren't there, but it could be the case that, well, maybe they have been done, but they just haven't been shared with us. Certainly in the recent letter that the cabinet secretary wrote jointly with the Welsh Government to the UK Government, when we first heard about the prospect of the carbon tax when the technical notice was published, we certainly did request sight of those impact assessments if they do exist at the UK Government level, and that really reinforces the point that you've made, minister, that we have no knowledge of whether or not those impact assessments have been conducted. Thank you. Angus MacDonald. Okay, thanks. Good morning minister and good morning to our officials. Clearly we welcome your early assurance this morning that you're keen to share as much detail with the committee as possible. Now, in the letter of 12 October from the cabinet secretary, it's stated that the Scottish Government's seen the draft SI, which of course we would expect, but we're just wondering if the draft SI could be shared with the committee. Well, we would like to see the final version of the SI and just to make sure that all the details around that are correct, but we would hope to be able to share as much information with the committee as possible. I don't believe that that would be too much of an issue for us to do that. Stewart? Given that something like a third of our greenhouse gas emissions that come to our targets on climate change are within the EU ETS and therefore are controlled and operated within that context, what preparations has the Scottish Government made for dealing with that in relation to our climate change targets in the event of an ordeal? In the event of a no-deal, the SI will still, if it's consented to it and if it transpires within a no-deal situation, the reporting mechanisms and the monitoring and evaluation would all stay the same as it is at the moment. However, it doesn't change our approach in terms of the Scottish Parliament. I know that this committee will no doubt be aware of we're dealing with the climate change bill. It doesn't change our aspirations or our targets within that. We would still be hoping to achieve those targets and to work with industry as much as possible to try and reduce emissions as much as possible. Again, it is frustrating because it really just depends on what happens, whether we see the imposition of a carbon tax or what the proposed way forward from that is. I do have concerns about general decarbonisation, because if we're not part of the EU ETS system any longer, it also means that we lose access to the 9 billion euros worth of innovation funding. Of the nearly a third of emissions that you talked about that are part of the EU ETS, about 35 per cent of our emissions are dependent on that, but 90 per cent of that 35 per cent are in industries where our energy-intensive industries are. In Scotland, we are disproportionately more affected by that than other countries in the UK. For some of those industries, that is why the ETS has worked well and is so important, because we cannot expect energy-intensive industries like those to be able to introduce vast energy efficiency measures that will drastically reduce their emissions. The only option that is open to industries such as those is the likes of looking at new innovative technologies, looking at carbon capture storage, for example, and having access to those kinds of EU funds that are there to help with that. That is why we have huge concerns about that going forward. In terms of any potential impacts for us here in the event of a no-deal, we would still be continuing on with the climate bill and looking to achieve the very ambitious targets that we have within that. Back of that, I was going to ask questions about the innovation funding that will be in a position of not having. I take it that the Scottish Government is going to be asking the UK Government for what is going to be put in place in that so that innovation can still continue. Absolutely. As I just responded to Stuart Stevenson, that is a massive element. That is one of the reasons why we support being part of the EU ETS, which is the fact that it offers those energy-intensive industries such as cement, steel, manufacturer, aluminium and all those heavy industries that are not really where there is very little option in terms of what they can do to reduce their emissions without looking at other innovations or technologies that are out there. We could be in a situation that, if we are not in the EU ETS, we do not have that carbon market there for the allowances, but we also lose out on the incentive for those industries and the other opportunities for those industries to look at other technologies that can help them to drastically reduce their emissions. Stuart Stevenson, just to pick up on the heavy industry and what they can do that for almost all those industries, cement was mentioned and so on and so forth, one of the options is, of course, carbon capture and storage. Does the minister agree with me that it is in a matter of very considerable regret the withdrawing of the previously promised £1 billion that there was to support the Shell and others project, which would have given us a first working pilot at Peterhead? Absolutely. Again, that is another serious cause of concern for us here, because I think that we have seen those projects arise and then be effectively cancelled by the UK Government. Without access to the innovation funding that is available through the EU, I personally do not have much confidence that the UK Government will be looking or will be incentivising those projects given the way that it has responded and acted in relation to carbon capture storage in the past. I understand that half of the auctioning revenues go on carbon-related, climate-related spend, and that includes renewable heat incentive. I do not know if you have had any assurances on the UK Government about the continuation of spending in those areas, so it is not just about innovation, it is about subsidy for micro renewables, business renewables as well? As far as I am aware that we do not have any of those assurances from the UK Government that those kind of spend that that kind of spend will take place. Certainly, once you are no longer part of the obligation that is placed on a member state like the UK to spend at 50 per cent or more of auction revenues on low-carbon technologies, there would not be, I am not aware anyway, within domestic governance within the UK any requirement for the UK Government to ensure a similar proportion was available for low-carbon technologies going forward. Do you believe then that the interim measures might lead to some hiatus in these schemes? That might be the case, but without those formal discussions and without any more detail as to what will be proposed or what we will see then, I genuinely would not be able to answer that. What options does the Scottish Government have to introduce Scottish-specific measures under devolved powers that would deliver equivalent incentives for industry? I mean, there are a number of options that we could look at. I mean, obviously, within the devolved powers that we have in the Scottish Parliament, we could, for example, set up our own ETS, but that is not an option that we would particularly like to go for, because I mean, there would be, I think there's about, well, just around 100 industries in Scotland that are involved, you know, that make up that 35 per cent of industry that is covered by the ETS. The market simply isn't big enough. I talked earlier about traditionally the good working relationship that we've had with the UK Government in this regard, and we were the early pioneers of the ETS and had been in operation since 2003 in the UK before it was formally introduced by the EU in 2005. So we had been able to work on a UK-wide basis because we believe, and that's why we are still supporting that general position that we would work across the UK, because we think that it makes sense for us to do that, and we know that that's what industry would prefer to see as well, and because, at least on a UK-wide basis, we have a bigger market there than what we would have in Scotland. It also very much depends on what other measures we see proposed going forward. So if the UK Government was to go down the road of a carbon tax—and again, we'll wait the outcome of those discussions and see what's proposed in the budget next year—that could have a detrimental impact on us in a number of ways, because that could mean that we could see almost double regulation in Scotland. While we have some devolved responsibilities, if we were to introduce other measures here, we could see that hitting industry harder, because they could potentially have a carbon tax, plus whatever measures we decided to introduce here. That's why our approach has been right from the outset to try and work with the UK Government to find a solution that would work for us all, because it has been done in the past. We've had that good work in relationship, and this is an area where it makes sense for us to try and work together, rather than working in isolation. While we have devolved powers in some areas, it's not as straightforward as us being able to utilise that, because we prefer to work together. Again, that's one of the issues that we have with the carbon tax, too. The fact that we then lose that takes away the accountability for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in that sense, because if a carbon tax is introduced, that is entirely deserved, and that's something that we wouldn't be able to have an involvement in or something that we wouldn't be able to have a say in. In the event of a no deal, are you still able to—or is the Scottish Government still able to commit to upholding the current levels of environmental protection in Scotland? That's, of course, what we would be aiming to do. We will still be proceeding with the climate change bill, regardless of what happens with this SI. If we end up in a no deal scenario, we will still be looking to have the highest standards possible in Scotland and to try and reduce and to have really ambitious targets. We have that in the bill at the moment, and we would still aim to be achieving that as we move forward. John Scott. Thank you, Candina. Good morning and welcome, Mary. Just further to the questions that I already asked around the climate change bill, would the EU, ETS and the event of a no deal require any changes to Scotland's national level emissions accounting, as it currently operates, given that Scottish emissions are currently adjusted to take into account the EU ETS? Yes. If the climate bill is passed, all that we are looking to do is really change the way that those figures are reported and to make that more transparent, because right now they are reported. We have the actual emissions, but then there is the adjustment that is made. I suppose that the way that we are proposing as part of the climate bill is more transparent and a more logical way forward, because we are seeing the actual emissions that the industry is providing. Again, that would not really impact, and hopefully we are not in a no deal scenario. We would be proposing to remain part of the EU ETS, but all that is changing is how that information is reported. It would not be altering whether or not we would be looking to be part of the EU ETS, so that would still be our ultimate aim. Does the Scottish Government anticipate that leaving the EU ETS in 2019 under the no deal scenario would have any impact on the current climate change bill or delivery of future climate change plans? The climate bill is currently working its way through the Parliament process. As I said, if we end up in a no deal scenario, we still aim to have as ambitious targets as possible and to aim to achieve those. It could potentially be more difficult to do that, depending on whatever measures, whether or not a carbon tax is introduced, that could all impact on the eventual outcomes and what we see in emissions. However, in terms of our proposed way forward, we will not alter what we are trying to do with the climate bill at the moment. In the notwithstanding assurance, the letter of the 12 October suggested that the Scottish Government has committed to looking again at our current climate change plan after the new climate change bill is finalised. Do you consider that notification leaving the EU ETS or a no deal scenario would have an impact and how quickly that might happen? In terms of the progression of the climate bill or when we look at how that affects the climate plan? I do not know how long the process will take for Parliament to scrutinise the climate bill but, of course, those things are ever changing anyway. We will still be expecting reports from the UK Committee on Climate Change that could tell us that we need to set more ambitious targets as part of the bill. If that is what the UK Climate Change Committee recommends, we would look to implement that as well, because we want to make sure that we are as ambitious as possible. I cannot say with 100 per cent certainty at the moment that it would not affect any timescales whatsoever, but I believe that we are still following the process as it goes at the moment. I would hope that it would not impact on the timescales and how we reflect on the passage of the climate bill and on how that deals with the climate plan after that. If we could look at the loss of registry functions and transparency, we know that the information on emissions by operators under the EU ETS is currently reported publicly as a result of interaction with the EU registry. However, in the event of a no deal scenario, there is more than likely going to be a change in how information reported is made available to the public. Does the draft SI ensure that all information currently available to the public by the registry will continue to be made available in the event of a no deal? If it does not, can the Scottish Government make a policy commitment to ensuring that information continues to be made publicly available? Yes, I can confirm that that information still would continue to be made public. As you mentioned, the information is currently published by the EU commission, but there are routes for that to be publicly available in Scotland anyway. In the greenhouse gas inventory and it would be collected by SEPA in the Scottish Pollution Release Inventory for Permitted Sites too, so that all the information that we collect on emissions would continue to be publicly available. Okay, that's good to hear. Thanks. You said earlier on that you hadn't had any formal discussions with stakeholders and environmental regulators because the scenarios that could come out of this are to use your, I think, largely hypothetical. One way to deal with the uncertainty is to shine a light, is it not? In relation to post-Brexit governance, the Scottish Government is currently having discussions with a range of stakeholders about replacement of European Court of Justice and other arrangements. Is there anything preventing you from having those discussions at this point? No, I would say that informal discussions have taken place, because the Scottish Government still deals with industry through a number of different forums where issues are discussed and continue to be discussed. In terms of formal engagement and formal consultation, that's something that we haven't been able to do because, again, we don't have that information to hand. I don't think that it would be our place to do that until we've been able to have those conversations and those formal discussions with the UK Government as well, and at least engage or get some sort of direction and information as to where we're looking to go in the future. I can completely understand that I know that probably there will be flaws within the EU ETS system. There are a whole host of other options there, but it's also up to the UK Government also needs to do that work as well to really undertake those impact assessments if they haven't done so already and to engage with industry as a whole. As I say, there have been those informal discussions, but they haven't developed much beyond that because of the reasons that I outlined earlier. What has come out of the informal discussions? What are the views of industry to likely impact in terms of their investments or concerns about how a scheme might be operated? Was that not an opportunity to feed that into the UK Government even if it's informal and say, well, look, this is what our stakeholders are saying, support our environmental regulator is saying? Of course, that's what we're looking to do anyway, is highlight our concerns to the UK Government regarding that. I can't give you that information today as to the exact outcomes of those informal discussions. Those are discussions that personally I haven't had and I wouldn't be able to give you the detail of that. Of course, that is information that we feed back to the UK Government anyway and all part of the general concerns that we're highlighting, because of course there's so much uncertainty there which is a big problem for industry and it's a massive problem for us not knowing which way forward it is going to be taken or what the preferred approach is going to be. So we do continue to make representation to the UK Government to try and have those formal discussions and to make sure that the engagement that needs to take place does take place and hopefully does happen. So you don't have a view from SEPA on this then, is that not something that you could get and furnish this committee with SEPA's view? Again, that's not a discussion that I've had at the moment and I would consult with the cabinet secretary to see if those are the discussions that have taken place. So in terms of just keeping pace with the situation as it carries on, are systems in place to ensure that the UK keeps pace with changes in best practice with regard to the monitoring and reporting of industrial emissions and who is responsible in the UK for keeping up to date with those changes or indeed in Scotland? In terms of the UK Government that you mentioned there, I suppose that would really be a question for them to respond to in terms of that. In relation to this SI, what it effectively does, it just means that we're able to continue the evaluation, monitoring and recording that we currently do at the moment. So we wouldn't see a change in that regard, that information would still be available, the regulatory role and the role that SEPA carries out, that would still remain the same. So effectively in that sense we wouldn't see many changes happen as a result of this SI or this SI or if we ended up in a no-deal scenario. In the future presumably we'll look after itself? Yeah and again we continue to press to have these conversations because it is vital for us that we really know where we're going and again we've been trying to have this conversation over the past two years because it's vital for us, it's vital for the Parliament and for industry as a whole to know what direction we're heading in but we still continue to pursue that. Thank you. Okay, Mark Ruskell has some questions around alternative mechanisms. Yeah I think we've covered some aspects of this already convener but I was wondering minister if you could say a little bit more about what you anticipate will come in relation to the carbon pricing and exactly how that would work. Again that's something that I just wouldn't be able to provide detail on because we quite simply don't have the information on that and those discussions haven't taken place so I wouldn't be able to hypothesise on that. Right, so the details of that proposal are just largely unknown? Yes. And the timing of the UK finance bill 2018-19 and the mechanism that will be introduced as part of that again, do you have further information on that? No, I don't have any information on that. Will there be information that will be provided in advance of that bill or is there any kind of sense of a timescale of framework around that? I mean we continue to try to work with the UK Government anyway to try and make sure that we get advance sight of what's coming as soon as we can and obviously as I mentioned in my previous responses in terms of the scrutiny and the process that that has to go through here but to be perfectly honest I mean that hasn't always been the situation. Again with the technical notice we've only given 24 hours that that was coming forward so again it can be the case that for some of these items we're not made aware until the very last minute before they're published but we continue to try and engage with the UK Government to try and get as much advance notice in advance sight of this information as possible. Stuart Stevenson has some questions around geological storage. Yes, convener, I do. One of the things the technical notice says is that in the anodio scenario of the licensing regime for geological storage, carbon dioxide would become inoperable as legal consent to undertake storage could not be granted. I wonder if you can proffer any explanation as to why that's the case. I gather that at the moment we have a licensing regime under our jurisdiction and I just wonder why that's going to happen. That's something that I'd be happy to come to write to the committee with and come back with a further response on that. I'll make the general observation that obviously in Scotland we have some particularly accessible and available geological storage opportunities that are important both for ourselves in carbon capture environments but potentially for taking carbon from other jurisdictions and making money in doing so. I just express the personal view that this is particularly important. Of course I have a constituency interest in that many of the pipelines that go out to the depleted oil fields that would be used do land come to the beach in my area, so I'm particularly interested in that. I certainly want to know what it is thought can happen and what the interaction of that with the ETS is. I think that that's slightly peripheral to the subject that's before us today, but nonetheless it's an important one for the committee to be aware of. Again, I'd just be happy to write to the committee with that information. It can be discussed and going forward. Just to round up our questioning, I think that the question has to be asked. The Scottish Government are recommending that we approve this S.I. Apologies. Can you state for us why it's important that we do? I mean, this is something that we are reluctantly agreeing to consent to. For us it's important that we do consent to this simply for the fact that, in the case of a no-deal, we need to have a functioning statute book. It would still allow us to do that evaluation and the monitoring. There are some technical changes as part of the S.I. It is quite simply for that reason. Again, we have continued to try and work with the UK Government to find a way forward. We do not want to end up in a no-deal situation. We want to still remain part of the EU ETS, and that has been our stated preference right from the outset. That is still something that we will be working to try and achieve. That is why, again, we are reluctantly agreeing to consent to this, because we need to make sure that we still have the ability to evaluate, monitor and record all that information. By consenting to the S.I., that is what that allows us to do in the event of a no-deal. All the other frustrations and unanswered questions that we have got around this, presumably we want to encourage the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government after the fact in order to tease out all the issues that have been mentioned today. Oh, absolutely. Again, that is what we have been trying to do, and that is what we will still continue to try and do. We want a system. Again, our preference for this is to be able to work across the UK, and that has been our preference right from the start, because this is an area where it makes sense for us to be able to work together. As we talked about earlier, this is something that is being looked at now on a global scale emissions trading. That is why it is so frustrating to be in this position now where we would potentially be leaving that at a time when the rest of the world is getting involved. This is something that we are starting to tackle on a truly global scale. We want to make sure that we were at the vanguard of this. In 2003, we started this system before it had been formally introduced as part of the EU, so that is why we want to continue, as far as possible, to be leaders in this. That is going to be particularly hard in the situation that we face at the moment, but that is what we want to try to achieve. We want to try to find a system that works here, but that all very much depends on whether or not the UK Government will engage in those discussions with us, but that is something that we are continuing to try to pursue. I want to thank the minister and our officials for their time today. At the next meeting on 30 October, the committee will take evidence on the climate change emissions reductions target Scotland bill and consider its report on the land reform Scotland Act 2016. Register of persons hold a controlled interest in the land Scotland regulations 2021 draft form. The committee will now move into private session, as agreed earlier in the meeting, and I request that the public gallery does not seem to be anyone there, but all the same be vacated as the public part of the meeting is now closed. Thank you.