Chamber and committees

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.

No. I do not have any time—sorry.

We need to deliver the right models for those local authorities to cut congestion and raise money. Encouraging people to choose to leave the car at home is not only good for the climate; it is about cleaner air and safer streets, a healthier society and a stronger economy. There is lots of evidence from around the world—including from Europe and other cities across the UK—on where reducing road congestion has been beneficial for the economy. However, we need champions to lead the debate with facts. We need a cross-party effort, not just here at Holyrood but at Westminster and in our town halls.

The issue is also about fairness. Car-dependent transport systems drive economic and socioeconomic inequalities. One in five households in Scotland does not have access to a car. Car use is lower among women, disabled people and older people, and those groups are likely to rely more on public transport. Simply pointing to a growing number of EV charging points really patronises the people who cannot drive.

We can do better. The Government needs to empower the councils that are ready and willing to take action now to create vibrant and inclusive places where the car is the guest and communities can grow and thrive.

I do not have time, unfortunately.

Choices need to be made. I ask the minister to reflect on the construction of the cross-Tay link road: £120 million is being invested in that transport infrastructure to benefit motorists. However, there are already starting to be congestion issues around Perth and Bridgend, which that bridge was meant to resolve.

We need to move away from going one step forward and one step back. We need to address the issues.

This is not a new debate. Back in 2006, the first ever climate inquiry in this Parliament recommended road user charging. It set the Executive a timescale of 10 years to get it right—the Executive had until 2016 to bring in a fair system of road user charging. That date has passed and we are now nearly 10 years on from 2016—it is nearly 2026 and we still have no more progress in Scotland on road user charging.

It will take calm heads and cross-party working in order to make progress on this. Perhaps it will take the kind of leadership that was shown by Douglas Lumsden when he was a councillor: behaving rationally, taking your party-political hat off and looking at the issues that need to be addressed. We see that kind of leadership in councils from time to time. The conversation with COSLA is really important because it is clear that there are those in local authorities who need, and want, to tackle traffic congestion using a range of measures.

I urge the Government to make progress in areas in which there is consensus. A regulatory review is looking at powers of road charging. We could be looking at simplifying the traffic regulation order process or decriminalising road offences. I think that there are areas of consensus among councils and the Government that we can use to make progress.

I welcome the minister’s support for the re-regulation of buses. I would urge him to make that process as simple as possible. It is clear that we need public transport to be run in the public interest, and we can only really achieve that if we have public and community operators in that mix.

This is a short debate, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject between now and the end of the parliamentary session.

It is clear that there is no war on the motorist, and it is a bit silly to suggest that there is. However, I absolutely think that, every single day, motorists face congestion misery on our roads, so we should be tackling congestion. We can do that only when the costs of public transport fall relative to those of the private car and when better reliability, punctuality and frequency make bus and rail the natural choice for commuters, where they have that choice available.

Facts are really important in this debate. I ask members to reflect on the fact that, since the Parliament was established, the number of cars on the roads has increased by 38 per cent and mileage has gone up by 16 per cent, while the cost of motoring has decreased by 19 per cent, rail fares have increased by 31 per cent and bus and coach fares have risen by an eye-watering 102 per cent in real terms. It is clear that successive Governments have prioritised car dependency, and that people who choose or rely on public transport are continually being disadvantaged by Government policy.

Transport is the biggest climate polluter, and private cars pollute the most. Actions are needed to reduce private car usage and demand—otherwise, other parts of our economy will have to pick up more of the burden in getting to net zero. A traffic reduction target, backed by deliverable actions, is needed now more than ever. Dropping the 20 per cent target is a real backwards step that sends out the wrong message, removes the focus and undermines the partnership action that is needed on the ground to prioritise public transport and active travel.

We have been subject to a blizzard of local press releases and election pitches this afternoon. I agree with Paul Sweeney that the motion that we are debating is somewhat “facile and disingenuous”. We need a more measured debate on the subject. I ask the minister to acknowledge that, on transport policy, we are taking one step forward at a time and then, often, one step back.

I give the example of bus use. Free bus travel for under-22s is a fantastic scheme and I know that the minister backs it. He recognises the benefit that it has brought to young people. It has also increased bus use by 29 million journeys. However, at the same time as we have been rolling out that successful scheme, we have seen bus journeys decline by 20 million because of road congestion and the failure to tackle traffic congestion, which we are discussing this afternoon. That is undermining the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been invested in bus users and the bus network every year.

We need to see what, back in the day, was called policy coherence—that is, where one policy is not undermining another one. We cannot have a transport policy based only on having more of everything that everybody wants. Choices have to be made. That is why we have a transport hierarchy and it should be guiding investment. When the Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee this week, it stated clearly that competition from cars was the primary influence on bus use. Unless we tackle that issue and level the playing field, we will not see a rapid increase in bus use.

I ask the minister to reflect on what Duncan Cameron from FirstGroup told Parliament just yesterday. He said that dropping the 20 per cent target represents a huge missed opportunity. There was an opportunity for partnership action and to have a clear focus.

Targets without measurable actions are doomed to fail. Despite the fact that a draft route map to reduce congestion was published jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities three years ago, the plan is yet to be agreed. When the plan comes back to COSLA at the end of this week, it will be gutted and all the meaningful action will be taken out of it. All the actions that local authorities such as the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council want to put in place to start to tackle congestion and deliver investment will be left out of the plan.

We need to reflect on the fact that progress on road charging has been absolutely non-existent in Scotland. We are 22 years on from the introduction of the congestion charge in London, which is now just accepted as part of everyday life and which raises significant revenue for public transport investment. It is time to support local authorities that want to introduce road user charging, such as those in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Okay—very briefly.