Good morning, and welcome to the 16th meeting in 2025 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Apologies have been received from Monica Lennon, and I welcome to the meeting Sarah Boyack, who is attending as her substitute.

Our first item of business is a decision on taking business in private. Do members agree to take in private item 3, which is consideration of the evidence that we will hear from Zero Waste Scotland?

Members indicated agreement.

I believe that I must make a declaration before talking to the committee in any shape or form. I apologise that I was unable to attend the meeting earlier but I was convening another parliamentary committee.

I would like the committee to be aware that I was a surveyor before I became a parliamentarian, letting houses under the Housing (Scotland) Acts of 1988, 2001 and 2014. I am also a private landlord in my own right and have been since 1989. I let houses under long-term private residential tenancies—no short-term lets for me, Mr Greer—and I also let them under licence to employees.

Amendment 142 moved—[Edward Mountain]—and agreed to.

In the hope of getting a run, I will move amendment 143.

Amendment 143 moved—[Edward Mountain].

I will in a minute, Mr Harvie. I just want to make a point.

The production of hydrogen has costs for the environment as well as for the industry. Therefore, we need to send the industry clear signals about the need for hydrogen, which requires us not to talk down all the things that it could be used for.

To ask the First Minister, in light of the reported high demand for neurodevelopmental assessment services, when the Scottish Government plans to publish the report on the work that it funded on the five “tests of change” across Scotland, which concluded in March 2024. (S6F-04036)

I would like the UK Government to give a clear steer to the industry that hydrogen will be important. If we said to the industry that a percentage of the power that it uses has to come from hydrogen, that would encourage investment and reduce the cost of production. Benefits could then be derived from it, which would allow hydrogen to be produced at a level that could make it affordable for use in housing.

Sarah Boyack said that we would not have to pay constraint payments. Would it not be nice if we could develop hydrogen so that we did not have to pay people not to generate power and to have idle turbines? Would it not be nice if battery storage plants did not have to be dumped all over the Highlands in a way that has not been thought out? Would it not be nice if the Highlands did not have to have pylon lines everywhere and we could use underground pipelines? We heard this afternoon that the underground pipeline that is available will become redundant. Emma Harper and one or two other members spoke clearly about how the gas pipeline could be repurposed to transmit hydrogen.

We have to be careful when we are thinking about hydrogen, and I offer a couple of words of warning. Choosing the hydrogen plant sites will be important, as we cannot denude our watercourses and lochs to produce the water they will require. We need to harvest the water used for hydrogen production when there is a surplus of it, and there will not be a surplus of water every summer if temperatures remain high. We also need to think carefully about the by-products that will come about. What will we do with the oxygen from a hydrogen plant? Will there be a role for it, and could there be a subsequent industry? I think so.

I am pleased that we have heard from the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy during this afternoon’s debate. She is very open minded and wants to see a market being developed.

I was pleased to hear from Graham Simpson that hydrogen fuel gives off only water and that it must be part of the mix.

I agree with Sarah Boyack that hydrogen should be used for transport. Is it not mad that we can transport hydrogen in a lorry but the same lorry cannot be fuelled by hydrogen? There is something wrong with the regulations, and I think they need to catch up.

I have given enough air to Mr Harvie, so I will just say that I do not think that he is on the right track when it comes to domestic heating. [Interruption.] You can make lots of noises if you want to, Mr Harvie. I tend not to do that when you are speaking.

Sorry, Presiding Officer.

I agree with Mr Rennie about the storage of energy and about hydrogen being a resource for that. I note that it is also a resource for the production of e-ammonia, which would be a useful fertiliser for farmers. That is important, because, let us be honest, we do not produce fertiliser anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Maurice Golden made the point that about a third of Germany’s demand could be met from what we have in Scotland.

I could go on, because I agree with most of the speakers. There is only one section of the speakers with whom I do not agree: the Greens. I do not agree that they have got it right. I think that they are missing the point. If they were slightly more open minded, instead of looking just at preconceived ideas, they might well see that there is a role for hydrogen in domestic heating, provided that they do not take a position that puts industry off.

Not imminently, then.

In the Highlands, we have a situation in which the health board has a neurodevelopment assessment waiting list of 1,958 young children—four times greater than it was three years ago. NHS Highland says that some children will have to wait in excess of five years even to get an assessment, and that it will take some 15 years to fully clear the existing waiting list. Does the First Minister consider it acceptable that some children will go through their entire school career waiting for an assessment, or that parents will have to fund private care to ensure that their children get the most from their schooling?

I always think that it is good to listen to an argument as it develops rather than jump in at the outset. I have tried to explain to you on numerous occasions why it is important to look at different fuels instead of focusing blandly on energy performance certificates when it comes to housing insulation. You did not listen to me then, so I hope that you will listen to me now.

I am delighted to speak in this debate on a motion that I broadly agree with. That does not always happen in a Government debate. Before I talk about it in any great depth, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, in which I declare that I have a farming interest. I may talk about fertiliser, and I have an interest in a fishery on the River Spey that may be affected by a hydrogen plant. I have made that clear at the outset.

I also agree with the Labour amendment. I have been enthralled in the debate by Daniel Johnson, Brian Whittle and one or two others quoting physics and chemistry. I now remember why I did not do those subjects at school and did others instead.

I support most of the Green amendment, until it gets to the bit about heating, then I lose the thread, so I cannot support it. Frankly, I think that the Greens’ amendment is disappointing and shows a lack of vision.

Let us be clear: I have had to brush up my knowledge of hydrogen, but I know from my experience on the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that about 40 to 45 per cent of electricity is lost when producing hydrogen and that about another 10 per cent of power is lost when hydrogen is turned back into electricity. A huge amount of power is lost in the process, which means that it is quite an expensive way of producing electricity. I have also found out that 9 litres of water are required to produce 1 litre of hydrogen. The process uses quite a lot of that resource, which I will return to in a minute.