Official Report 833KB pdf
Welcome back. Our fourth item of business is consideration of two legislative consent memorandums on the UK Government’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, the first of which was laid on 25 July. We are also taking the opportunity to look more broadly at the prospects for sustainable aviation fuel production in Scotland and at its potential role in reducing greenhouse gases from aviation, which is an issue that is bound to arise when we consider the transport chapter of the next climate change plan later this year.
I welcome to the meeting Jim Fairlie, Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity; Chris Bryceland, team leader, critical energy infrastructure, Scottish Government; Kirsty Ryan, solicitor, Scottish Government; and Terry Shevlin, aviation strategy and sustainable aviation team leader, Transport Scotland.
Minister, I invite you to make a short opening statement.
Thank you very much. I will be as brief as possible.
I welcome the opportunity to speak with the committee about the legislative consent memorandum and the supplementary legislative consent memorandum for the UK Government’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, which was introduced in the House of Commons on 14 May 2025.
The Scottish Government strongly welcomes efforts to boost the production and use of sustainable aviation fuel, and therefore supports the overall policy intention of the bill. Sustainable aviation fuel is one of the most promising ways of reducing aviation emissions and it is therefore important in supporting the Scottish Government’s commitment to achieve net zero by 2045.
If SAF were commercially produced at scale in Scotland, it could bring significant economic benefits, including the creation of green jobs and investment in infrastructure. Therefore, the Scottish Government recommends that the Scottish Parliament consents to clauses 2, 4, 5 and 12 to 19 of the bill. The Scottish Government has had extensive engagement with the UK Government at both official and ministerial level to resolve concerns around the regulation-making powers in the bill that may be exercised for a devolved purpose in Scotland.
Although my meeting in the summer with Mike Kane MP, then Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Security at the Department for Transport, did not result in agreement, I am encouraged by the more productive discussions that have been had with his successor, Keir Mather MP, Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Decarbonisation, and I remain hopeful that a solution can be reached that respects the devolution settlement and ensures that a formal role for the Scottish ministers is set out in the bill.
11:30As things stand, the bill does not provide the Scottish ministers with a statutory role and we continue to press for amendments that would provide appropriate safeguards and accountability. We believe that a statutory consultation or consent mechanism would offer reassurance and transparency, especially given the early stage of development of the UK sustainable aviation fuel industry.
Until agreement is reached and the necessary amendments have been secured, the Scottish Government is recommending that the Parliament withhold consent for clauses 1, 3, 10, 11(2) to 11(5) and the schedule. The Scottish ministers remain committed to constructive engagement and to supporting measures that could lead to the increased production and use of SAF in Scotland.
Thank you. I think that the Scottish Government is happy to support parts of the bill in the LCM because it believes that, by doing so, it will increase opportunities for the production of SAF in Scotland. What gives you that opinion? Where will that happen?
The whole world is looking at how to reduce the impacts of aviation on our climate as we know it. If there is a global push that will allow us to reduce our emissions into the atmosphere while not having a negative impact on our connectivity, that is a global effort that we should all get behind.
Scotland is perfectly placed to be part of that process. We are talking about not only SAF, but hydrogen and zero-emissions aircraft, which could be developed in Scotland. We are in the very early stages of the process. I recognise that we have been talking about it for a long time, but we are in the very early stages of determining what that revolutionary project will look like. I think that Scotland is in an ideal position to take advantage of it.
I agree with you in principle, but you are saying that the bill will help to increase SAF production in Scotland. You have spoken about why you think that that should happen. I want to know what concrete evidence you have that the bill will help to increase SAF production in Scotland and where that SAF will be produced. Where do you see the SAF coming from?
As you know, there are a number of on-going projects. Project willow is looking at what we could do in Grangemouth, and a project is under way in Orkney. Regular conversations take place between Scottish Government officials and UK Government officials. However, this is largely a reserved area, so you are right in what you say. There are many things that we cannot control in this country, but we are having on-going discussions to see how we can maximise the opportunities for people in Scotland.
We have been told in evidence that SAF will probably be produced near where it will be used the most, or in that locality. That will not necessarily be Orkney or Aberdeen, will it? Will the bill—the LCM on which you would like us to agree to—help with the production of SAF in both those areas, for example?
There is discussion to be had on all those matters. Consumers may want the SAF to be produced as close to their point of consumption as they can get it, but producers may want to produce it closer to their centres of production. We need to have negotiations and conversations at a UK-wide level to ensure that Scotland can be a beneficiary of what the new technology will deliver. It is only right that the Scottish Government explores every avenue to see how we can take advantage of that.
I am obviously doing this very badly, so I will ask my question again. How will the bill help us to do that? You have not told me how the bill will make what you have set out happen, which is why you are saying that we should agree to a legislative consent motion.
The LCM represents the UK Government’s position, which is that it will ensure that SAF is developed, and that other emission-reducing aviation projects are progressed, across the UK. Agreeing in principle to an LCM will allow us to be part of that conversation. Where the Government has concerns is where the bill touches on devolution and removes the ability of the Parliament and of the NZET Committee to scrutinise what comes next. That is why we have revised some parts of the legislative consent memorandum.
I am not sure that I am getting any further, so I will hand over to the deputy convener.
Good morning. I will turn to the Scottish Government’s position in the legislative consent memorandums, which is to consent to the bill but to withhold consent on four or five clauses of the bill as it stands. That includes clauses 1 and 3, which relate to the revenue certainty contracts and how they are allocated to SAF producers. For each of the clauses from which you recommend withholding consent, will you explain the particular points that touch on devolution that you feel need to be addressed in order to get agreement with the UK Government?
The UK Government accepts that the clauses touch on devolution but, at the same time, it says, “We do not really need to bother you with it.” Clause 1 is about revenue certainty contracts that will be set over a 10-year period. We have no idea what will happen between now and then—the vast majority of us will not be sitting in this Parliament in 10 years’ time. It is only right that, for devolved areas, this Parliament has the right to say, “Okay, what does that actually mean?” We have no idea what changes there will be or what the outcomes will be of the various discussions that are going on within the UK and globally as to how SAF will develop.
The UK Government’s position is that, “The bill is about a technical thing and we do not need to worry you about it.” Why would we not just consent if the issue were that small? The only reason why a Scottish minister or the Scottish Parliament would refuse consent would be if there were a concern. If the UK Government says to us, “These are minor technical issues and you don’t need to worry about them,” we will agree—if they are minor technical issues.
Convener, I remember you raising the issue about members not getting the time to scrutinise things properly—I believe that you raised that in the chamber last week.
I did.
There are already issues with us not being given information in time. How do we know what the detail will be when we are looking at something that could be 10 years down the line? It is important that we protect the right of this Parliament to be able to have a say on things that will touch on devolution.
Would it therefore be fair to characterise the Scottish Government’s position in the LCMs as an interim position? That is, the Scottish Government supports the intention behind the bill and supports agreeing to a legislative consent motion, but, if the outstanding areas that you have concerns about are not sufficiently addressed by the UK Government, the potential final position of the Scottish Government could be to withhold consent. Am I understanding that correctly?
I do not want Scotland to somehow become isolated in the project to develop sustainable aviation fuels. However, where there are areas that touch on devolution, we can have a negotiated position. As I said, I have a better relationship with the current minister, who seems to get that these are genuine issues that we need to get over. I hope that we can negotiate a position where we will get a satisfactory agreement on the clauses that we have concerns about. If we get that agreement, great; we will move on. If we do not get that agreement, we will come back to the committee about our position at that point.
If you do not get agreement on those clauses—I do not know what the timeframe looks like—is it possible that the Scottish Government would recommend that legislative consent be withheld?
I am optimistic that we will get a satisfactory conclusion. I will leave it at that.
Okay. You have taken a negotiating position.
I turn to the issue of SAF. You correctly pointed out that there is significant potential for the manufacturing of SAF in Scotland. From the Scottish Government’s perspective, will you give us a sense of where the greatest potential is for sustainable aviation fuel? Is it in the first, second or third generation of SAF? Will the timeframe for the development of those three generations of SAF be different over the course of the next 10 years?
I will bring in Terry Shevlin to speak about the technical sides of that.
As you have alluded to, there are different types of SAF. It is worth highlighting that Scottish Enterprise is doing an economic impact assessment of SAF potential for Scotland. It hopes to have completed that by the end of the year. Once ministers have that information, they will be far better placed to consider some of the questions that you have talked about.
Having read the committee’s previous evidence sessions, it seems to me that there is, if not a consensus, a general view that power to liquid—what you would call third generation SAF—has the greatest potential. Equally, it appears to be the type that is, perhaps, furthest out in time. There is already production of first generation or HEFA—hydro-treated esters and fatty acids—SAF in various countries across the UK.
There are on-going discussions following project willow at Grangemouth and Scottish Enterprise is involved in those. The Scottish Government has responded to the recommendations from project willow on the crops that could be used for first generation SAF. Chris Bryceland can pick up on the work that has been commissioned on that.
In answer to your question, all the SAF projects globally that are at commercial scale are HEFA-based. That means that they rely on waste oils, fats and greases. Obviously, the supply of waste oils, fats and greases is limited for a sector that is as big as aviation, so we will need future-type fuels.
There are several examples of the commerciality of such projects and how long they take to get to market. The refinery in Rodeo, California, is looking to use soya beans as a feedstock source to make aviation fuel. It took four years to get from concept and the conversion of a refinery to commercial production. Similarly, in Singapore, Neste took five years from concept to producing fuels. If we are looking at that pathway for places such as Grangemouth, we have to be realistic about the timescales. A lot of project development work is required before businesses are able to invest and there are a lot of things that businesses need to see to give certainty.
Project willow recommended some key actions for the Scottish Government. The prime recommendation was on feedstock. In Scotland, there is not enough feedstock—waste oils, greases and fats—to meet the demands of a commercial-scale biorefinery. It recommended—
And that is in a country that apparently fries all its food.
Project willow recommended that we consider a cover crop called camelina. A cover crop is a crop that grows off season—that is, in the autumn and winter months. Camelina has been grown successfully in America and Canada and fuel from it was used by Delta Air Lines for a test flight last year, so it is proven. However, we do not know yet whether it is suitable for Scottish conditions. We asked the James Hutton Institute and Scotland’s Rural College to do a desk-based review, which they have completed. The Scottish Government asked whether we could produce the crop at the scale required and what implications the Government should consider. The results are on the Scottish Environment, Food and Agriculture Research Institutes—SEFARI—website.
Based on the results of that desk-based study, we are conducting field trials—seeds went into the ground in September—led by the Hutton Institute and the Rural College, to answer some of the questions that arose from the review. Can camelina grow in Scotland? Do you get the yields? What is the impact on soil conditions and on the rotational crops? It will take a couple of growing seasons before we get the answers, but they will add to the evidence base on whether we can get enough oily material to get a commercial SAF plant up and running. That is what is happening in the near term. In the future, the opportunities are around power to liquid.
When we look at where refineries and people who make fuel locate, we see one of two things. They locate either where there is significant demand for the fuel—that is, near a big airport like Heathrow—or in a place where they have feedstock advantages. The Rodeo refinery in California has lots of soya beans nearby; Preem in Sweden has access to tree material. That is where the refineries are locating. In relation to power to liquid, the opportunity may lie in Scotland’s potential for renewables. That is where we hope that the Scottish Enterprise work looking at the economic impact of the SAF industry will come to bear.
11:45
That is very helpful—thanks very much. I must confess that I am a bit conflicted about the idea of investing in HEFA, given that the UK Government’s SAF mandate means that, by 2030, HEFA should decrease to 71 per cent of our SAF production and that, by 2040, it should decrease to 35 per cent. That says to me that the future will be power to liquid, so why should we bother spending hundreds of millions of pounds on investing in a SAF refinery facility? You have mentioned the timeframes. To be perfectly frank, I wonder whether Scottish Enterprise is wasting everybody’s time in looking at some of this, because I cannot see how it will make any business sense whatsoever, given the UK Government’s SAF mandate. Maybe Scottish Enterprise should reflect on that, because it might just be wasting everybody’s time.
I will turn to another issue, which is the funding that the UK Government has made available so far through its advanced fuels fund to support SAF project development. From looking in the paperwork that the committee has received, and joining the dots, I think that 19 projects have been awarded funding. Only one of those is in Scotland, in Orkney. Why has only one project in Scotland been allocated AFF?
We have talked about that. I will turn to Terry Shevlin.
What you said is a matter of fact, Mr Matheson; there is only one project, and it is up in Orkney. Earlier this year, I asked Department for Transport officials whether they could provide any feedback about the third round of AFF and whether there had been any bids from Scotland, but they were not able to confirm that. I spoke to Scottish Enterprise, which is engaging with the companies that were not successful in securing the latest round of funding from that source in order to find ways forward. It would have theoretically been possible for Petroineos at Grangemouth to try to access that funding—maybe Chris Bryceland will speak to that.
From the conversation that I have had with Scottish Enterprise—this is second-hand information—it is speaking to prospective SAF investors in Scotland. I cannot get into the details of the companies, for obvious reasons. Scottish Enterprise provided a bit of feedback about the AFF. This is anecdotal, rather than hard-and-fast evidence. Some of the points that were made include that there have been three awards of funding so far and that sometimes that has gone to the same recipients, and that a broader strategy and policy about carbon usage at a UK level needs to be in place to try to ensure that the AFF is allocated as efficiently as possible.
As I said, those points are anecdotal, so I do not want to place too much weight on them. Scottish Enterprise has been talking to investors about what it can do to help them to get better access to that funding. However, as I say, it would have been at least theoretically possible for Petroineos at Grangemouth to try to access that funding for its purposes.
It is down to the advanced fuels fund. HEFA-based SAF projects are probably not what the UK Government is looking for; it is looking at next-generation projects. The launch of project willow in March has really stimulated demand from the market. Scottish Enterprise has received more than 120 inquiries from project developers that are looking to develop projects at Grangemouth. Of those, 20 relate to SAF projects. We would like to think that, with a fair wind, there will be access to some of that funding, depending on the project. I cannot go into any details on specific projects due to commercial sensitivities, but there is definitely appetite from the industry.
Looking at the timeframe and the capital investment that is needed for some of those projects, I wish that I could share your optimism on what will come from project willow, to be perfectly frank. I am not aware that Scottish Enterprise has created any new jobs in Grangemouth as yet. Most of the stuff from project willow is five, six or, in some cases, 10 years away, so I do not share your optimism on that.
Is there Government-to-Government engagement on the advanced fuels fund and whether more could be deployed for Scotland-based projects? The evidence that we heard yesterday was very much that power to liquids is where the real growth area will be in the future. The best place to do that is where there is significant access to renewable energy at low cost, and that is Scotland. Are there Government-to-Government discussions about the deployment of that fund?
There are a lot of Government-to-Government conversations. They are more at official level. I have met both of the aviation ministers in my time in office, but Terry Shevlin and his team are in regular contact with UK Government officials.
In general, we speak to UK Government officials about decarbonisation. As I said, the contact that we had previously was to try to understand why bids were not coming from Scotland, but they could not go into that. That is why I went to Scottish Enterprise to get feedback.
I do not know what the committee intends to do other than reporting on the LCM, but if you intend to follow up on this piece of work, it might be worth expressing general concern about the lack of funding coming to Scotland. There might be reasons for that that we are unaware of. Chris Bryceland gave one reason in relation to Petroineos, but there is currently no SAF production in Scotland. We can certainly continue to convey the concern that there is a lack of funding.
In my questions, I will continue to ask about project willow, which the deputy convener raised with you. There are two SAF projects in project willow. One is about first-generation SAF—the HEFA one—and the other is about third-generation SAF. Should we still be pursuing the first-generation project, especially when we look at the mandates that are coming forward? That is almost like a bridge to other fuels in the future. Is it still feasible to have that project within project willow?
Earlier this year, with the cabinet secretary, I hosted a round-table event with the aviation industry. There is huge uncertainty in the sector about what the right way to go is. It depends on the airline and its objective. At the moment, we need to have every tool in the box, because we need to know that we have potential whichever way it goes. It feels like we have been in this position before. Should we go with Betamax or with VHS? We do not know at this stage.
I absolutely take on board the deputy convener's point. He probably knows more about this than anyone else in the room other than the officials. Is there scope to continue with that project? That decision will have to be taken by those who are working on the projects, who will then advise the Government as to whether we are in the right space.
How far away do you think that we are from producing SAF at Grangemouth? Is it still five or 10 years away, or is the period shorter than that?
In project willow, the SAF projects are mid-term projects. It will be around 2030 before a HEFA project can be realised, and it is the most mature technology.
It is worth noting that we are not restricted to the nine buckets in project willow. If there are opportunities from other technologies—there are many ways of producing SAF that can generate an economic value case for Grangemouth and help with our aviation decarbonisation targets—we are open to speaking with developers about them. Those are the conversations that Scottish Enterprise is having. It is not solely about the nine technology options.
The UK Sustainable Aviation Bill will produce levies from traditional aviation fuel that can be spent on SAF. Will Grangemouth be able to bid for that money for a HEFA project or will it be excluded under the proposals in the bill?
My understanding is that it is not excluded and that it could bid for that, but I think that it is a bit more technical than that, is it not?
The bill is designed to reduce key risks to investors; indeed, I think that that was the point that the convener was getting at right at the very start. This is a framework bill, really, and the UK Government is consulting on the detail of the levy; I think that it launched the consultation within the past couple of weeks. Therefore, there is no accompanying analysis from the UK Government in, for example, the bill’s explanatory notes on the extent to which or where SAF production in the UK might increase as a direct result of the legislation.
The bill is designed to create a revenue certainty mechanism to give confidence to investors, and the whole point is that that should, thereafter, lead to more SAF plants. We do not know exactly what will happen at Grangemouth—we can have a conversation about that—but there are, of course, no guarantees.
Can that money be spent on first-generation SAF, or is that excluded from what the bill covers?
The bill does not get into that. The explanatory notes say that it is about getting “first-of-a-kind plants” built commercially, and I have asked what exactly would be covered by that. As you know, two of the project willow projects were SAF-related, and the latter is not first of a kind by any means. However, the question whether the definition would apply to the former is something that I have asked about.
We still do not have any clarity on that.
We should get a response from the DFT on that soon, but it is not something that the explanatory notes go into in great detail. They just refer to “first-of-a-kind plants”, but there are not really many SAF plants in the UK as it stands anyway.
I will move on to my next question. We have heard that, for third-generation SAF, we need green hydrogen and a functioning carbon capture industry. Is there a risk of the Scottish SAF industry relying on those uncertain net zero industries, minister?
Are you asking whether there is a threat to SAF production as a result of the uncertainties?
Yes. What do you think is the biggest risk to successful SAF production in Scotland?
That it does not come to Scotland. We wanted a carbon capture project in the north-east—as you will be well aware and were very supportive of—but it did not happen. Is that a threat? Anything that gets in the road and slows up our opportunities is a threat to Scotland being able to capture that opportunity. After all, this is an opportunity, and it is an opportunity in this time, so I am very much looking to ensure that we work with the UK Government as much as we can in order to get as much of this natural cohesion to come to Scotland as we can. After all, you are absolutely right—we have all the ability here to do it, so let us do it in Scotland.
Do we need the Acorn project in place before we can produce SAF?
Do we need Acorn in place? Do we, Terry, technically?
That is a big question. Certainly, if you are looking to make third-generation SAF, you need that supply of carbon. Can you do that without Acorn? Well, that is a highly technical question, but you certainly need a source of carbon.
As I have said, the economic analysis that Scottish Enterprise is doing should, I hope, shed some light on those questions. Last year, the Scottish Government set up a SAF working group and it has done work on that. It got into some of those questions at a fairly early stage, but then project willow came along. It was quite interesting to hear one of the witnesses at your previous meeting say that, although it was commonly held that power to liquid would be very expensive, he did not hold the same view, I think. He is the first person I have heard say that power to liquid would not be as expensive.
I think that a witness in your first evidence session referred to this, but a SAF mapping exercise was previously carried out on behalf of Scottish Enterprise, and it pointed to Scotland’s relative strengths in renewable energy, skills, infrastructure and so on. Answering your detailed question, though, would be difficult at this stage.
I suggest, minister, that it might help you and your officials to reflect on that and perhaps come back to the committee when you have had a chance to do so. It would help us with our consideration of SAF’s role in the climate change plan, and I think that it would be useful to have some considered thought process.
We will provide you with as much information as we can possibly provide you with, but there is an awful lot of information that we just do not have.
I am grateful for that. I am sorry for interrupting, Douglas.
No, that is fine. That was all from me for now, convener.
I think that Mark Ruskell has questions.
Yes, convener. I want to ask about the Scottish Government’s wider approaches to aviation, particularly in relation to an air departure tax. What are the plans for that? I believe that there was discussion about an exemption for lifeline flights to the Highlands and Islands. I am interested in how that differs from air passenger duty, which is being introduced at the UK level.
12:00
The lifeline services to the islands is the sticking point from the Scottish Government’s point of view. If there is going to be an ADT, it would have to comply with the subsidy control legislation. Until we have bottomed that out—we have not bottomed it out at this stage—we will continue to make sure that our islands stay as connected as they possibly can be. You know as well as I do that island connectivity is vital, so we are not going to jeopardise that in any way, because we do not have certainty about the subsidy control issues.
I do not think that the importance of lifeline flights has ever been in dispute. Do you have a sense of when that issue will be resolved? We have been talking about it for a number of years now, although I understand that it is largely on the UK Westminster Government to address the issue with the subsidy control regime. Is there a sense of when it might be resolved so that there is at least certainty about the options that the Scottish Government has at its disposal?
I missed the first part of what you said about lifeline services.
I was just agreeing with you and underlining your point.
I see—gotcha. Terry Shevlin has had more conversations about the timeline with UK Government officials than we have. My understanding is that we are no further forward and it is still being looked at.
Taxation officials lead on that. Air departure tax will be the Scottish replacement for air passenger duty and tax officials are working on it as we speak. As the minister said, what ministers want for Scotland is an air departure tax that maintains vital Highlands and Islands connectivity. We are under a new subsidy control regime and that is being tested by tax officials as we speak.
As has been said, the Government will commit to reviewing air departure tax bands and rates before it is introduced. The high-level principles of the air departure tax were published in the summer by tax colleagues, one of which said that it could be used for environmental reasons.
The issue is under discussion so there is not much more that we can say at this stage, I am afraid.
Thank you.
Mark, do you have any more questions?
No.
Douglas Lumsden has a question about pricing.
I just want to understand whether there will be any increase in fare prices as a result of this bill.
I would imagine that the commercial operators will decide how they are going to price their services for their profit margins. That will be entirely up to them.
There is a whole thing about how SAF is going to be an expensive product to use. If, however, we get into a position where we have a single product that is used globally, the market will drive the price down. I cannot tell you what the price will do in the short term as airlines start to develop their price ranges, given what they have to put in, but as you know—indeed, the committee has heard more about this than anybody else—there is a control mechanism that will help with that. In any case, decisions about pricing will be commercial decisions made by commercial airlines.
I guess that there will be a levy that will have to be paid, and airlines will have to use more SAF, which is more expensive than aviation fuel. Therefore, we should expect air travel to become more expensive, because of some of the subsidies and levies that will be coming through.
SAF might be more expensive as the technology is developed but, as it is used more, the price should come down.
We cannot not do this; we need to do whatever we can to drive down emissions from aviation. If SAF is more expensive for a period of time, the airlines will work out what that means for their businesses and how they will manage it.
I think that we heard last week that SAF is three to five times more expensive than aviation fuel.
I am sorry—I missed that. Can you say it again?
SAF is three to five times more expensive than aviation fuel—that is what we heard from witnesses last week. I guess that that will have to be passed on to passengers. Should we expect air travel to become more expensive as we move to SAF, given that we will be using more expensive fuel and given the levies that will come in on top of that?
As I have said, it will be for airlines to work out how they will continue to provide air travel.
Thank you.
Monica Lennon has some questions.
Good afternoon. We know that the Scottish Government will be publishing its climate change plan imminently—I think that the Government told us that in writing today. However, I want to take us back to the previous climate change plan update in 2020, which included a commitment to decarbonise scheduled flights within Scotland by 2040. Minister, are you able to confirm whether that is still Scottish Government policy?
The climate change plan will be published very shortly. Terry Shevlin can come in on that question.
That is still a commitment. It might be worth going back to the event earlier this year that the minister has alluded to. It was held in June, I think, and was jointly chaired by the minister and Ms Hyslop; the point of it was to bring together aviation representatives to talk about the possibility of electric, hydrogen-powered and hybrid aircraft. We have seen some positive news in that respect—we might come back to that—but it raises the question of how airports are preparing for it. Clearly, in order to have hydrogen and electric aircraft, you will have to have the infrastructure in place.
The event involved not only Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, which the ministers own and largely fund, but other airports and major players. The point was to understand the state of discussions, who would potentially pay for what, the current state of the market and so on.
I wanted to highlight all of that, because meeting the commitment that you have mentioned will largely rely on a number of things. Although those types of aircraft are in development, no such aircraft are certified for commercial passenger flight anywhere. That is a large obstacle that has to be overcome. Because ministers fund—and, in effect, own—HIAL, there might be funding implications, too. HIAL has 11 airports across the country, and we do not yet know exactly what infrastructure for hydrogen or electric will be needed at each of them.
The event was a starting point to bring everybody together, and there will be a follow-up. It was a core part of trying to hit the 2040 commitment and get some of the wheels in motion.
We have already made investments. I have also attended a meeting of Sustainable Aviation in Scotland, which is made up of the operators.
I come back to Mr Lumsden’s question about pricing. The industry is looking at this and asking “How are we going to make this work? How are we going to make this viable and make sure that we are driving down emissions?” A concerted effort is being made across Government and industry, as well as by passengers, to find out how we are going to do that. It is an exciting and positive thing that is happening.
I hope that we are reaching a position where Scotland has the ability to capitalise on all of this, because there are huge opportunities for Scotland to be right at the centre of it.
Thank you for clarifying the policy intention, but can you give us more detail on how it will be achieved? When it comes to decarbonising scheduled flights within Scotland by 2040, does the Government expect that to happen through the use of low-carbon technology or low-carbon fuel, or will offsetting be used to achieve that target? Perhaps you can help us understand what the Government means by decarbonising scheduled flights.
On you go, Terry.
Consideration of all those questions is at a fairly early stage, because we do not yet have the aircraft available that would be needed to deliver that commitment. The committee recently heard Loganair set out some of its ambitions, and I think that it has a target date of 2040, too.
ZeroAvia, which is one of the leaders in the development of zero-emission aircraft, was recently provided with a total of almost £30 million of funding by the Scottish National Investment Bank and Scottish Enterprise. In the short term, there will be some manufacturing near Glasgow airport.
In our aviation statement, which we published last year, we set out various commitments that ministers would undertake, in part to help meet the 2040 commitment. For example, ministers said in the aviation statement that they would be willing to consider buying low and zero-emission aircraft, when they become available, for the public service obligation flights that they help to operate.
There is a lot of stuff that needs to come together. To be honest, a lot of that will rely on the private sector and on certification, which would be done by the Civil Aviation Authority, which is the reserved body. However, the discussion that we had at the ministerial event was a very useful starting point.
The minister mentioned Sustainable Aviation in Scotland, which is a new group that has been set up. An awful lot of work is being done in relation to SAF and low and zero-emission aircraft. That group has been set up as a Scottish body to make sure that Scotland-specific issues are aired. The minister was at its launch, and we hope to continue to have engagement with that group to make sure that Scotland’s voice is heard by the UK Government, because its jet zero strategy applies to Scotland, too.
We are actively seeking to ensure that we have Scottish Government officials in the jet zero task force, so that we are completely up to date with everything that is going on at UK level.
That was all very helpful. I imagine that having certainty on policy will help with the private sector investment and buy-in that you mentioned.
The expert SAF working group has been mentioned a couple of times. Can you give us an update on the work of the working group, which I believe was convened by the Scottish Government? What advice has the group given the Government in relation to the forthcoming climate change plan?
The SAF working group was put into abeyance as a result of project willow. We are now having a conversation about whether to stand it up again so that it can look specifically at SAF. We are still discussing that.
Was the working group a useful forum? Did it give good advice to the Government? I do not know how often it met.
Terry was a member of the group.
It was chaired by Transport Scotland. At that point—last year—the UK SAF mandate was being developed. As you know, different types of SAF can be produced, and—bearing in mind that the SAF mandate would include biomass, power to liquid, waste and so on—the idea was to bring together experts in Scotland to consider what could be done in a Scottish policy context in those areas.
It is fair to say that officials are fully cognisant of the fact that there is the SAF mandate, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, the advanced fuels fund and the UK SAF Clearing House. There is a lot going on at UK level. It is a case of trying to clearly identify where Scottish ministers can add value.
In brief, the work of the group covered some of the issues that we have talked about already. The group did not publish a report, for the reason that the minister gave; in effect, project willow superseded the group’s work. The general sentiment was that although biofuels would be useful, there are competing demands for them. Chris Bryceland has already spoken about HEFA. Power to liquid was seen to be the option that would be most beneficial in the long term, but it was stressed that it could be a very high-cost option.
I think that ministers will want to wait for Scottish Enterprise’s report so that they can understand what has been happening with project willow and consider whether the SAF working group needs to be stood up again to home in on where Government can add value.
The minister mentioned that the working group was in abeyance. Have the members of that group been stood down or are they on standby to come back?
In effect, the working group has been stood down. Its last meeting was last year, and then things quickly moved on to project willow. That was a real-life situation, if you like, in which SAF was put forward as a potential option, whereas the SAF working group had been more involved in looking at the options for what was theoretically possible for Scotland, building on the earlier SAF mapping exercise.
The working group could be stood up again. There is a lot of good will, as the minister has said, because there is an almost universal desire for more SAF.
12:15
I have a last question on that point, just so that I am clear about this. The committee has a huge interest in the climate change plan, which we know will be coming out very soon. Did the expert SAF working group feed into that plan in any way, or had it already been put into abeyance before that work had developed?
The plan is coming out soon and the work of the group, on which there were a number of experts, was definitely helpful. One of the things that the Transport Scotland aviation team was keen to do was to bring in relevant officials from across Government—experts on hydrogen, wind power and so on—because it is a real cross-cutting topic and we do not hold individual expertise on any of those matters. It is about making the potential of SAF clear to hydrogen colleagues, wind colleagues and so on. A lot of specialist groups and organisations took part in those meetings and the work was extremely useful.
Thank you. I think that the last question falls to me—
You missed me, convener.
Did I? Oh, I did, Kevin. That was a huge mistake—I apologise profusely.
Folk do not often miss me, convener.
No, and I will not do it again.
Good morning, minister. Earlier, you said that you hoped that Scotland will be in a position to capitalise on those issues. I would go much further than that and say that Scotland must capitalise on them, and to do so we could look at the commentary that some of the witnesses made last week. One witness suggested that there should be an audit of all our existing infrastructure to see how we could move quickly to develop sustainable aviation fuel, the best of which is the power-to-liquids scenario. The UK Government has failed to do an audit of infrastructure. Can the Scottish Government do such an audit to see where we can move forward on the matter much quicker and at less cost?
Before we came here, we had a fairly extensive meeting to talk about a lot of those issues. One of the things that came out of that meeting was that we wanted to ask the committee what it thought. We do not have the exclusive rights to knowledge and information, and I am more than happy to hear ideas from the committee. If the committee thinks that that suggestion has great value, let us have a look at it. We could do an audit if it would be of value.
I think that the committee would be very grateful and some of the possible future investors would be glad if we had an audit. The UK Government seems to be slow in that respect. Where we can use existing infrastructure to make the change, we should do so.
We will look at that suggestion.
You and your officials have already touched on the other opportunities to decarbonise air travel, including the use of liquid hydrogen and battery, and Mr Shevlin talked about some of the on-going work. Are we doing enough in our exploration of those possible technologies to ensure the future of our lifeline island links in particular?
I do not know whether we are doing enough, but we are certainly doing plenty. Is the work going fast enough? I cannot give you a direct answer to that right now—Terry Shevlin might know more than I do. We are alive to the fact that we must ensure that island connectivity is at the forefront of our thinking. Loganair, which was at the round table that I hosted in the summer with Ms Hyslop, is clearly the biggest player in that area. The work with ZeroAvia, which Terry mentioned, is on-going. An awful lot of work is going on; whether it is going fast enough remains to be seen.
I wonder whether Mr Shevlin wants to comment on that.
You have probably heard this from witnesses already, but every expert I have heard has said that, when hydrogen, electric and hybrid aircraft are certified as being safe for scheduled passenger services, they are most likely to be used on routes in Scotland. That is why they are so exciting.
As I have said, there is an awful lot of discussion going on. At the ministerial event that the minister referred to, we spoke to airports, airlines and other groups in Scotland and asked where we can best add value. UK discussions et cetera are going on, too, but those people made it quite clear that, if possible, having a Scottish discussion to identify Scotland-specific issues would be useful. The next step, as the minister has said, is to try to convey that to the UK Government through the task force.
I want to come back on a point that you made earlier, Mr Shevlin, and the question is for you or the minister. You talked about where Scottish ministers can add value. I recognise that aviation is a reserved issue, but quite frankly, I think that we should not just be adding value; we should be in the driving seat and forcing the UK Government into certain positions. It does not have to think to the same degree about short-haul flights to the islands, which would not be able to operate without those lifeline links. Can we as a committee be assured that, instead of just adding value, the Scottish Government and its officials will, on certain issues, be driving things much more swiftly?
Let me answer so that Terry Shevlin does not have to. Terry speaks as a Government official, but when it comes to adding value as a Government minister, I can say that I will be pushing as hard as I possibly can to ensure that Scottish interests are very high on the agenda in anything that goes forward from here.
Another thing that you have talked about, minister—and it is something that I have talked about myself—is where we fall in all of this. Is it SAF, is it liquid hydrogen or is it battery for certain short-haul flights? Obviously, it is not going to be liquid hydrogen or battery for long-haul flights. You gave the analogy of old video cassettes; I have used that in the past, too, but the reality is that, with video, we ended up with one of the worst technologies and market control over something that was not quite as good. Is there a danger here that we put all our eggs in one basket, which is never a good thing? How do you and the Scottish Government ensure that, on all these fronts, we are at the vanguard of developing these technologies?
Going back to your point about island connectivity, I would point out that the almost £30 million investment from SNIB and Scottish Enterprise in ZeroAvia is not about SAF but about other technologies. We are already looking at what those technologies are and what they can do for Scotland.
I reiterate my ambition—which is your ambition, too—for Scotland to be at the forefront of all of this. We have to accept that this is a reserved area, but I will certainly be pushing as hard as I can to make sure that we get as much out of it as we possibly can.
Thank you.
I apologise again for forgetting you, Kevin. I will not make that mistake again.
Douglas, I think that you wanted to come back with a supplementary question before I ask my question.
Yes, thank you, convener. I want to ask about the SAF working group again. How many times did it meet, and when did it last meet?
It met three times. I can dig out the last date for you after the meeting, but I think that it was around last May.
I am just struggling to understand why it was put on hold. When we know that SAF is so important and project willow has two SAF projects, why was it decided to park that group at that time? Given that it is all about looking at supply chains and everything else, we probably needed the group more than ever at that point.
It is a question of resources. I am from Transport Scotland’s aviation team, and the question about economic investment in SAF in Scotland is a much bigger one. Officials from across the Government were involved in the SAF working group. I have already said that Scottish Enterprise is doing further work on that.
You have the real-life example of project willow, which is on-going, with two possible SAF options. I have not been directly involved in project willow, but I know that a lot of resources have been put into that. I said that there was no final report from the SAF working group, but the conversations were certainly summarised for ministers, and the main points that came out were shared, as appropriate, with people who were working on project willow and with Scottish Enterprise, so there has been that connection. Now that people are learning from project willow and now that Scottish Enterprise is nearing the end of its work to look at the economic impact of SAF, it will be up to ministers to determine whether now is a good time to stand the working group back up and what, specifically, we should be focusing on.
Were most of the people who were on the SAF expert working group redeployed or working on project willow instead, or were those different people?
The people on the SAF working group were a mixture of Government officials and external stakeholders, so they are not full-time SAF officials. They were people from hydrogen, for example, who would talk about the potential for hydrogen for SAF and so on. They were not dedicated SAF officials. Chris Bryceland might want to say more, but project willow is where the focus on SAF has been for Scotland, because it is a live viable option, if you like.
I am sorry because I do not want to labour the point too much, but are you talking about Scottish Government resources or are you talking about external people who were helping and who were involved in the expert group?
When I am talking about resources, I am talking about Scottish Government officials. They were involved in the SAF working group. I have talked about the first part of the working group’s remit, which looked at how Scottish Government policy on, for example, waste or power to liquids could be adjusted as a consequence of the fact that the UK SAF mandate will focus on certain feedstocks. Just to be clear, the second part of the group’s remit was more about what potential support the Scottish Government could give for SAF, with “support” not being defined, so it could be financial or other support. Given that that was fairly close to what project willow was looking at, there did not seem to be much point continuing with the SAF working group—because there was a live real-life question to discuss.
However, now that there is more experience of project willow, Scottish Enterprise has been speaking to many prospective SAF producers, and there is a chance to learn from that. However, that will be advice that goes to ministers—it will not be led by our team. We are the aviation team and we do other stuff. It is a much bigger-picture cross-cutting question.
Minister, do you think that the SAF working group should be reconvened?
The answer to that will depend very much on the report that comes back from Scottish Enterprise as things get wound up, but I am very keen to ensure that we keep the progress going.
I am looking around the room to make sure that I have not missed anyone else. It appears that I have not, so I will come to you with my question, minister.
What I think that I have heard over the past few evidence sessions on this matter is that electricity-powered planes will offer some short-haul flights—they will be useful for that—but that there is still quite a lot of work to do before hydrogen is a viable fuel. People have talked about aeroplane fleet upgrades, but, as I think that we heard in the previous meeting, that will take a minimum of 10 years. Fuel-consumption figures are being driven by the way that aeroplanes are flown, and we are talking about the introduction of SAF, which will make a difference. However, on what SAF will do, I think that, by your own admission, the evidence that we have heard today is that it will increase the price of travel but that that will be a commercial decision. Surely you are not saying that, to achieve the emissions targets that the Scottish Government will be looking for from the aviation sector, the only thing that we can rely on is for people in Scotland to fly less. Is that your policy, minister?
No.
12:30
So you are happy for people to continue to fly as and when they want and to disregard the emissions from that?
I am happy for people to be connected. I very much believe that we will find the technological answers. There was an example of that when I attended the—I have forgotten the name of it. I am trying to think of the name of the airline in Edinburgh airport that has introduced the new route to Dubai. Terry Shevlin, can you remind me?
It is Emirates.
It is Emirates—my apologies.
I am sure that it will be delighted that you forgot its name—
It will be delighted, given that I have been to see it twice. Emirates has designed a plane that has wings that come in at a certain level. It is a wee bit like a falcon when it is swooping—it pulls its wings in so that it has less drag. It sounds like a silly wee thing, but that is just drag that is using up more fuel. The technology, including the technologies involved in the fuels that we are using, will help us to drive down emissions, because everybody is making a concerted effort to do so. Do I want to cut connectivity? I would think that, if I were to ask my colleagues in the tourism sector whether they wanted to cut connectivity, the answer would be no. It is not about stopping people from flying; it is about ensuring that we use all the technologies and abilities that we have to allow us to continue to fly but to bring emissions down.
Therefore, with regard to the emissions targets—the parts that relate to the transport section of the draft climate change plan, when it is finally laid in the Parliament; we are still waiting for it, but I heard today that it is imminent—we will rely on technology on emissions reduction to reduce aviation emissions, we will continue to be able to use aeroplanes, and the Government has no intention of reducing people’s ability to be connected and to go on holiday by flying.
I am not going to pre-empt anything that will be in the plan, but my understanding is that there is no desire for us to stop people flying.
I am sure that that will make some people very happy, minister. Thank you. On that note, we have reached the end of the evidence session. I thank you and your officials for attending.
The committee will consider and agree a report to the Scottish Parliament on the two LCMs to the UK bill in the near future. If there is to be another supplementary LCM, we will also reflect on that.
Minister, I will just say that I stood up clearly and criticised the UK Government with regard to previous LCMs, but I also made the point that it is for the Scottish Government to let us have LCMs as soon as is reasonably possible—I think that those were my words. I just remind you that I said that and that, if something comes up that the committee should know about, the sooner we get it, the better.
That would be selective quoting.
No—I was honest, and attacked in both directions.
Thank you very much, minister. We now move into private session.
12:32 Meeting continued in private until 12:52.Previous
Ecocide (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1