Chamber and committees

Time is getting on, but I have a further question, which is on the COP presidency. Earlier, Martin Johnson touched on the preparatory work that he was involved in for COP. We still have some time left in the COP presidency before it is handed over next year. I am interested in what that workstream looks like at the moment.

Yes, but if your starting point is about high welfare standards for animals, does it matter on which stretch of water or roads the animals are being transported? This is about the length of journey time.

I understand the geographic case, and you have pointed to the need to increase supply chain development, mobile abattoirs and maybe local branding, including in the islands. There are other ways to crack the issue. I understand the argument that your members put forward. However, in this context, a challenge and different perspective is coming from NFUS. How might you use the internal market act and perhaps the common frameworks to challenge those rules, if that is something that you want to challenge?

You described a triangle in which there is alignment with the EU, alignment with the UK and Scottish regulations, too. I am again being provocative, but do you not have an advantage in that you can argue for alignment in some areas and for divergence in other areas? Does the triangle not enable you to pick and choose?

You make a particular argument about glyphosate. I do not want to get into the details of the pros and cons of that as an option. In a way, you are able to move around the different regulatory frameworks and position yourselves and your members. You can point to where there are high standards and where there is alignment, but you can also point out what aspects you do not agree with. Are there advantages to that, or are you still trying to get used to the landscape that you are in now, which is quite fluid, with the common frameworks not really working properly yet?

It is good to see you again, Mr Hall. I want to drill down into a couple of issues. You mentioned animal transportation. If I were to be provocative, I would say that NFUS is arguing for weaker live animal transport regulations than those being proposed by DEFRA, notwithstanding the geographical challenges that you have outlined. How might you use the internal market act to allow—[Inaudible.]—or even challenge regulations that you see as undermining the needs and the interests of your members?

Thank you. Back to you, convener.

That answer perhaps addresses the question about the 80 per cent of natural gas that will still need to be used within the gas grid for blending.

I invite Mr Dalhuijsen to comment, to give another perspective on things.

Time is moving on. Mr Dalhuijsen, do you want to answer any of those points or speak about waste incinerators?

It helps a little bit.

I have another follow-up question. The Government’s “Update to the Climate Change Plan 2018-2032: Securing a Green Recovery on a Path to Net Zero” discusses the deployment of CCS technology in respect of energy from waste incineration plants. There are numerous such plants in Scotland. Can you comment on the economics of retrofitting existing plants, and on whether CCS could be deployed effectively at that scale for future energy production from waste incineration plants?

I will go back to Professor Haszeldine on that question.

I was just reflecting on the comments by Professor Haszeldine in the previous evidence session about the Government in effect requiring the oil and gas industry to store carbon emissions on a compulsory basis as a licence requirement, and I wonder whether Mike Tholen can give us the industry’s view on that. Specifically, given that there are 6.6 billion barrels of oil and gas in the North Sea, how much of that carbon can be captured and stored? On what timescale can that happen?