Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Okay. Thanks.

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 the option of a section 8 power, someone might challenge it and you would need deep pockets?

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?

Would it not be easier to say that deterioration and restoration are part of the same picture, and that what we need is deer management and nature restoration orders? That would encapsulate everything rather than having a quite outdated system that is based on preserving remnants of biodiversity and then trying to bolt on something that is more about restoration and improvement? It feels quite confused.

Would you expect more or less potential risk of judicial review as a result of the bill, or do you think that there will be enough certainty with the bill and the code of practice so that everybody will know where they stand and it will be clear that a section 8 order is a section 8 order?

I am thinking of examples from over the years. Would you say that that was the case with the Ardvar estate a number of years ago, when there were questions about why NatureScot was not using section 8 powers to intervene? Was it because the estate was so deteriorated that damage was difficult to prove?

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.