Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful, because—

Tim, you said that, in a previous existence, you were involved with Acorn and you mentioned some of those issues. Do you want to comment on anything that you have heard so far?

Good afternoon, everyone. You probably heard me put a similar question to the previous panel—you were coming in as Mr Lumsden and I were asking questions. It is about a national network of hydrogen pipes moving hydrogen around Scotland and the UK, and project union was mentioned. I asked the first panel about the hope that that will be in place by the mid-2030s but it will not all happen at the one time—it will be phased and prioritised for the benefit of Scotland, the Scottish economy and our net zero targets. How should that work be phased and prioritised in the Scottish context? It would be helpful to know that.

I do not see any other takers, so, without putting words in your mouth, I will just nudge you slightly on the connections and locations that should be prioritised as part of that project. I expect your clear answer to be, of course, the work around the Acorn project and the wider Grangemouth cluster, for the benefit of the Scottish economy. However, is there any other prioritisation in the Scottish context that you think should happen? You do not have to give an answer to that. It is just that we heard earlier on that, although it is hoped that we will do everything that is required to be done, the uncertainty about when it will happen, and the sequencing of how it will happen, is leading to some uncertainty for business investment. Investors want that certainty and to get back their investment; they want to know whether the structure will be there. Has that been your experience in talking with investors? Are there any other parts of Scotland where that network should be prioritised?

I will turn to Professor Haszeldine. Do you want to add to that? I was going to ask you a separate question, but any reflection on that is welcome.

There are lots of reasonable points in that. You made a comment about potentially exporting hydrogen, and you mentioned a pipeline to Germany. That is interesting, because David Amos, I think, who was on the first panel, took a different view. He spoke about a different pipeline that would cost about £2 billion. I see that Scottish Government research shows that, even if our hydrogen was sold at high prices compared with global prices, there could still be a market for that because the EU would not have enough hydrogen to meet its needs. We also heard earlier that there are lots of ways of driving down the price of hydrogen.

I think that it was Mr Amos who suggested that that would be a good-quality investment for future export opportunities. I think that he compared that pipeline to Germany with cables moving energy down the east coast to serve the north-east of England, which he said would cost £24 billion to complete. He questioned whether that was for consumption and use in England or whether wider infrastructure would be built up to use hydrogen for other things, such as they are hoping to do at the Grangemouth cluster. Indeed, he queried why we would not develop that capability in Scotland.

We are trying to get our heads around where that investment should go, why it should go there and whether that might compromise future potential Scottish jobs and growth, depending on what that the infrastructure looks like. Another witness, who we thought was an expert, took the converse view from yours about having a pipeline to Germany. Rather than my putting a specific question to you, I am keen to have your reflections on all that.

I have no more questions, convener.

I think that we have been speaking about that for the past few minutes, so I invite people to make any additional comments. We have heard about how Scotland might need an alternative system and about the relationship with the DWP if the Scottish system diverges from the UK one, so that we have an alternative assessment process. I think that we have covered all that. I can raise one or two other matters if you think that that would be helpful, convener. If the witnesses have any other comments about abolishing the work capability assessment, they should raise those, but I think that we have covered most of it.

There is a thought in my head about those who get the health element of universal credit. It is not clear who will or will not be pressurised into seeking employment once the work capability assessment is abolished and it is also not clear when conditionality will kick in. Are there additional concerns about that? It would be helpful to hear about those.

PIP is an entitlement for those with disabilities and is not related to being in work. I hate to make the matter sound worse, but do the witnesses think that there has been a deliberate blurring of that? If there is, might we be looking at a future situation where there are questions about whether people should be getting both PIP and the health element of UC? That is not something that I would ever suggest, but might that be the UK Government’s wider direction of travel? That could cause further serious damage to those living with disabilities.

I know that the question theme was supposed to be work capability assessments, but I think that we have fleshed most of that out with Jeremy Balfour’s line of questioning. Does anyone want to take up the cudgels based on my wider thoughts?

Other members will ask about those other aspects, so I do not want to step on their toes, but that is very helpful—thank you.

Good morning. Erica Young mentioned financial planning to leave an abusive relationship. Earlier, we heard that, in order for discretion to be used to give someone an exemption from sanctions or conditionality, the victim/survivor must not be living in the same household as their former partner. Where a work coach identifies or suspects that abuse is going on, is there any mechanism in the universal credit system to make an application in private in advance and for decisions to be made in principle, so that a victim/survivor can see what their financial situation would look like if they decided to leave?

The system does not seem fit for purpose for someone who has to leave in a chaotic situation without any planning, because they then have to deal with all the inbuilt delays that come with universal credit in the first place. Has any consideration been given to that or has the DWP done any work on it? Whether it is Social Security Scotland or the DWP, should we start to do that?