Seòmar agus comataidhean

I need my time on this.

On H100, Brian Whittle and Maurice Golden pointed to what the real driving interest is behind that particular home heating project: it is quite clear that SGN manages a gas grid and wants to continue to put fossil fuel into that gas grid. It wants to blend hydrogen in, but 80 per cent of what will be flowing through that gas grid in future will be fossil fuel gas, which will make us more and not less dependent on fossil fuel heating. Of course, we cannot put carbon capture and storage on millions of domestic boilers in people’s homes, so there is a danger that we would lock in emissions if we went down the route of blending hydrogen into the gas grid.

I very much welcome this afternoon’s debate. I would characterise much of it as being about the laws of physics versus magic solutions. I certainly thank Daniel Johnson and Patrick Harvie for reminding us of some of the laws of physics and chemistry in relation to hydrogen and for setting out some of hydrogen’s advantages as an energy vector, as well as some of its limitations. We need to start the debate by understanding the facts on what hydrogen can and cannot do.

The cabinet secretary said early in the debate that the Government’s focus is on the hard-to-abate sectors. As Greens, we very much see a role for green hydrogen, in particular, in the hard-to-abate sectors such as fertiliser production, heavy shipping, aviation, cement production and, potentially, steel. Willie Rennie talked about the need for us to build up the domestic demand for hydrogen in Scotland. However, as Sarah Boyack pointed out, that can come only through an industrial strategy and just transition planning, for example, at the cement factory at Dunbar, at Grangemouth and at Mossmorran. We need to start with the role of hydrogen in our domestic industrial sector and then build up supply chains and understanding around that.

The cabinet secretary moved on quite quickly to talk about the role of hydrogen in easy-to-abate sectors, which is where the Greens disagree with the Government. It makes no sense to invest in hydrogen in uncompetitive uses such as domestic heating, trains and buses in our cities, which are grossly inefficient uses of hydrogen.

The cabinet secretary talked about the 100 pilot projects around Scotland in which the Government has invested, and a number of Scottish National Party members have spoken about the pilots in their constituencies. How many of those pilot projects are focused on the hard-to-abate sectors, and how many of them are experimenting with uses of hydrogen in easy-to-abate sectors for which we already know the answers?

The cabinet secretary mentioned the H100 project in Leven as a domestic application of hydrogen for heating and there being a need to prove the concept for that. However, we have already proven the concept of hydrogen heating many times over. Globally, 54 independent studies have been done that have picked up on hydrogen heating projects. The studies have all reported, and not a single one of them—across Europe or around the whole world—has recommended the widespread use of hydrogen heating. That is partly because each of those studies has shown an increase in energy costs as a result of hydrogen heating. On average, the studies show an 86 per cent increase in costs for householders.

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con) rose—

Brian Whittle rose—

I want to make some progress.

Graham Simpson talked about people out there wanting a wonderful heating system whereby the only thing that is produced at the end of the day is water. That is absolutely fine, but it cannot come at the expense of fuel poverty. If Mr Simpson genuinely wants pensioners and hard-working families to pay astronomically high energy bills because of a hydrogen heating solution, I think that that is wrong and would drive people into fuel poverty. That is exactly why the UK Climate Change Committee has recommended against the widespread adoption of hydrogen for home heating.

I would like to make progress.

A number of members have spoken about the role of blue hydrogen in the mix as part of the transition. I recognise Kevin Stewart’s enthusiasm for CCS, and a part of me really hopes that CCS works and is effective and efficient, but there are still major concerns about CCS and whether it is deployable at scale. It is not just the Greens who are saying that. Several years ago, the UK Climate Change Committee advised the Scottish Government to develop a plan B in case the Acorn project does not match the expectations that Kevin Stewart set out earlier. It is not a dead cert that CCS will be available, will be cost effective and will work.

Several members have mentioned potential applications for hydrogen in the transport sector. I can absolutely see its being used for heavy transport and shipping, but not for lighter forms of transport such as coaches, buses, cars or heavy goods vehicles. It was interesting to hear Graham Simpson and Maurice Golden getting so excited about potentially having hydrogen refilling points every 124 miles. To be honest, that filled me with range anxiety, given that I can charge my own EV at home, overnight, for 8p per kilowatt hour. Why would we move towards a hydrogen transport system that would create so much range anxiety?

A strong hydrogen economy in Scotland is in the offing, but it must be focused on the hard-to-abate sectors. That is where we should put in the research and the just transition planning. It is also where we should put in the science and the effort from Government and industry working together, rather than wasting time on applying hydrogen to areas that will be not cost effective and will end up driving up bills for hard-pressed families around the country.

I will pursue that line of questioning. I am interested in knowing why the section 8 power has been used so infrequently over the decades. It feels as if the power has been redundant. Is part of the reason that there is an in-built fear of judicial review within NatureScot and Scottish Natural Heritage? To go back to Emma Roddick’s point about resourcing, do you fear that if you use that option of a section 8 power, someone might challenge it and you would need deep pockets?

Okay. Thanks.

I am struggling to understand how the venison dealers licence addresses the risk that FSS has articulated around E coli. If the meat already has to meet Food Standards Scotland requirements, and if FSS issued a warning in 2015 that all venison has to go through those who have a venison dealers licence, I am not sure where the risk is. It feels as if what we are discussing is more about traceability and communicating with the market, and how to deliver that through apps and security and quality assurance programmes, than anything else. I do not know—maybe I am just not fully getting it.

My question is in a similar vein, because I am also on the NZET Committee with Edward Mountain. I am interested in the witnesses’ thoughts on the provisions on land management plans that are in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and whether they will help or hinder. Clearly, some community engagement is required. Do you expect those plans to cover deer management? If so, how does that change the dynamic of getting a local consensus with surrounding communities and landowners on the appropriate objectives for deer management? Do you see deer management as something that landowners just might not consider as part of their land management plans?

In relation to a section 8 order that was issued this month, you said:

“NatureScot cannot be satisfied that effective deer management will be put in place to address risks of significant impact on peatlands, woodlands and other habitats”.

What does the proposed new section 6ZB of the 1996 act add? It is about restoration. Does it change the nature of your consideration of the section 8 powers? It seems that you are already acting where there is deterioration as well as an urgent need for restoration. I am struggling to understand how the proposed new section 6ZB adds anything significant. Maybe you can explain.

We are interested in those sections of the bill that relate to deer management, as the convener described. We are interested, in particular, in your comments on the incorporation of nature restoration as a ground for intervention—we discussed that in the previous session; the proposed changes to the control measures; and NatureScot’s ability to recover the expanded costs.

I see that Mr Orr-Ewing would like to go first.