Chamber and committees

That is helpful, because my next question was going to be about battery electric for planes. Hold on to that thought, because I want to know whether the other witnesses have any views on liquid hydrogen. All that I can go on is the notes that I made in preparation for the meeting, which say that, by 2027, we are looking at 80-seater planes using liquid hydrogen for short haul. The question is whether, if technological advances go further, that is worth pursuing. I have no view on it. The committee wants to ensure that every aspect of technological advancement to pursue net zero for aviation is being explored. Liquid hydrogen is one of those technologies, so I want to tease that out. Are there any other views on liquid hydrogen? If not, perhaps you could comment on the use of battery electric for planes. Sebastian? Hold that thought, because Mark Morrison is taking up the cudgels.

Before I move on to Mark Morrison, do you want to say anything about battery electric aircraft, Dr Eastham? I think that it said in our papers that Norway is hoping to move by 2030 to all short-haul and some medium-haul flights being battery electric, with the new fleets for those flights being almost exclusively battery electric.

Thank you.

It is almost as though you knew that I was going to mention hydrogen and did a link for me, convener.

I know that we have spoken about hydrogen, and Graham Hutchings in particular talked about some drawbacks of using liquid hydrogen in flights. We spoke a bit more about using it as a power source to produce SAF, but there are opportunities for using liquid hydrogen directly as an aviation fuel, not as SAF, because it is not a drop-in fuel. Does it have the potential to lower emissions and be part of the mix in making aviation carbon neutral? Given that I have taken Graham Hutchings’s name in vain, perhaps we should go to him first.

That is helpful.

Mercedes, I will bring you in, but because of time constraints, I will ask you an additional question. You can answer this final one or you can reflect on the two that I have already asked—that is up to you.

I have a wee note that says that there have been really good improvements in fuel efficiency over a number of years. Have we squeezed that as far as we can, or can we make more improvements?

That particular question does not have to be for you, Mercedes. I have asked three questions now; do you have reflections on any of them? If any of the other witnesses want to come back in on any of those, I would also be delighted to hear from them.

That is very helpful. Do any other witnesses have final reflections on the questions that I have asked?

Okay. Thank you.

Agenda item 2 is our final evidence session on pre-budget scrutiny. I welcome to the meeting Shirley-Anne Somerville, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, who is joined by her team of officials: Julie Humphreys, director, tackling child poverty and social justice; James Wallace, deputy director, social justice finance lead; and Ian Davidson, deputy director, social security policy. Thank you, cabinet secretary and your team, for joining us this morning. I believe that you have a brief opening statement before we move to questions.

That is helpful. It is worth putting on the record that the near half a billion pounds a year that is spent on the Scottish child payment is not an overspend—that is planned expenditure. Of course the planned expenditure means that if you are spending £600 million on that, the forecast would be inaccurate and then that might be seen as an overspend. The reason that I am stressing the point that it is planned expenditure is because politicians and others do not see what the alternative choices are—I get that. If we are making that planned expenditure on the Scottish child payment or planned expenditure of £640 million to mitigate the worst decisions of Westminster, those are pounds and pence that we are not spending on other things. Some of the narrative that we have heard from witnesses so far is that, if we do not invest in other things that also support children and families and the most vulnerable—classroom assistants or health and social care support—that could also have a detrimental impact on the life experience of people who might otherwise have to rely on the social security safety net and that investment.

When you make planned investment in the social security budgets, do you look at the relationship between other budgets that could otherwise have more investment and could also help the same people that the Social Security Scotland budget spend helps? That theme came up time and again during our pre-budget scrutiny.

I was going to say that we were getting into a bit of a niche matter, although an important one.

Cabinet secretary, if you and your officials want to let the committee know examples of how you seek to drive efficiencies within Social Security Scotland, I am sure that that would be welcome. I am conscious that there is also a cost to auditing and budgeting individual items. There must be a balance made between how much it will cost for officials to get the cost of something, which could be greater than the cost of the thing in itself. I am sure that any reflections that you want to give us in correspondence about the efficiencies in the agency would be very welcome.