 I thank the minister and members. That concludes this item of business. We move to the next item, which is a statement from Michael Matheson on the development and deployment of carbon capture, utilisation and storage in Scotland. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement. Therefore, there should be no interruptions or interventions. I call on the cabinet secretary for around 10 minutes, please. I want to provide an update to members in light of last week's illogical and disappointing decision by the UK Government not to support one of the most significant parts of Scotland's journey to net zero, the Scottish cluster led by the ACORN CCS project. That is despite a successful bid that the UK Government acknowledged, it met their assessment criteria, instead designated it as a reserved cluster. Members will rightly be interested to understand more about what this decision means for Scotland and our response to this UK Government failure. In doing so, it is important to set CCS in its proper context as a crucial element of Scotland's decarbonisation as we move towards a just transition to net zero. We are rightly proud of our world-leading statutory emission targets. CCS, as it is anticipated, will play a vital role in helping us to reach these. We have consistently called on the UK Government to deliver on its areas of climate change responsibility. Collaborative action is particularly vital as we approach COP26. While it is encouraging to see proposals in a number of areas, the recent UK net zero strategy does not go far enough. There are a number of areas where we need the UK Government to take more action and to act faster. That includes more support for areas such as renewables and, of course, CCS. The UK Government decision last week on the Scottish cluster is out of step with its own net zero strategy, which raised the ambition for the amount of carbon captured to be stored in the UK. The strategy more than doubles the ambition for carbon capture set out in the Prime Minister's 10-point plan, and yet there is no corresponding increase in support for the required multiple CCS projects with the capacity to achieve that. Scotland has vast potential for CO2 storage in the North Sea and depleted oil and gas reservoirs. As seen with the ACORN project, repurposing onshore and offshore legacy oil and gas infrastructure offers us rare and cost-effective access to those storage sites. The ACORN project is expected to store over 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2030, approximately 10% of Scotland's current emissions, and up to 20 million tonnes by 2040. On this basis alone, the decision by the UK Government not to award the Scottish cluster track 1 status is wholly illogical. It shows a clear lack of ambition and leadership on climate change by the UK Government. In stark contrast, we see the establishment of CCS in Scotland being able to support decarbonisation efforts across the UK and in other nations. The Scottish Government has long been supportive of CCS as a means of decarbonising our industry and underpins negative emission technologies as a vital tool in our armory to achieve Scotland's emission targets. Our 2045 net zero target is based on advice from the Committee on Climate Change, which states and it described CCS as a necessity, not an option, and significantly who pointed to Scotland's CO2 storage potential in recommending the state. CCS offers an important transition opportunity for Scotland's mature oil and gas industry. The UK Government decision will materially affect the businesses and communities in the north-east of Scotland that possess existing skills and expertise that are required to transition to a low-carbon economy, delaying the opportunity to create good green jobs. A just transition must be delivered across all of our communities, including those that have had a dependency on oil and gas. That is why we have announced a £500 million just transition fund for the north-east and Moray, and I have asked the UK Government to match that ambition. We are also going to support those in carbon-intensive industries with our skills guarantee. I am aware that some members in this chamber may have concerns about CCS. Let me reassure those members that I am aware of those concerns and that this Government's support for this technology is contingent on its performance and consistency with its climate targets. As the First Minister set out in her pre-cop keynote speech yesterday, CCS, with the highest possible capture rates, could be a crucial technology for industrial decarbonisation and energy transition, creating options and providing industry with the flexibility to transition its products and services to net zero. It would mean that we can drastically reduce emissions while providing security in our energy supply and provide industry with early options to decarbonise. It would ensure a future for Scotland's industrial cluster in Grangemouth and in the north-east, ensuring that important domestic industries continue significant employment within a net zero Scotland. I wish to reiterate the Scottish Government's support for the Scottish cluster. We have long supported the ACORN project, providing funding and policy support through feasibility stages since 2017, and continue to believe that ACORN is the most cost-effective and deliverable CCS project in the UK. The Scottish cluster estimates that its projects can support an average of 15,100 jobs between 2022 and 2050, with a peak of 20,600 jobs in 2031. The UK Government's confirmation that two English industrial clusters would be awarded track 1 status overlooking the compelling case that is submitted by the Scottish cluster is not just a short sighted but a serious mistake. We engage with the UK Government throughout this process to highlight the Scottish cluster's role as a vital component of decarbonisation both in Scotland and throughout the UK. We also offered the UK Government help in supporting the projects on several occasions. Despite the Scottish cluster being considered by most as the most advanced CCS project in the UK, it was not awarded clear definitive track 1 status. Instead, it is a reserve cluster for which we can only assume to be for political rather than for policy reasons. It is astonishing that the UK Government has taken this decision, which significantly compromises our ability to take crucial near-time action to reduce emissions, not just in Scotland but right across the UK. The chancellor is expected to deliver his budget on Wednesday. He has a chance to fix that in his budget announcement, and I would urge him to do so. Last week, Serine Wood stated that the UK Government's decision makes little economic or environmental sense, and likened its approach to leaving the best player on the subs bench. Those are sentiments that I share, and I am sure that many colleagues across the chamber share them too. Let me be very clear that the UK Government believes plainly and simply that the UK Government has made a serious mistake that it needs to correct and to award the Scottish cluster track 1 status. The Scottish cluster presents the best opportunity to reduce emissions by the mid-2020s, not to recognise that, smacks of politics, not science. That inexplicable decision shows that the UK Government is guilty of empty words and broken promises of ensuring a just transition for Scotland's communities. Remember that the UK Government pulled a plug on £1 billion of carbon capture investment for Peterhead in 2015, and now it is repeating the same trick again. The north-east of Scotland is a home of the offshore industry and an obvious location for a carbon capture project. I therefore call today upon the UK Government to reverse this decision and accelerate the Scottish cluster to full track 1 status without delay. We have previously advised the UK Government that we would help to support the Scottish cluster and we stand ready to do so. However, we do not hold all of the necessary legislative or regular levers that are retained by the UK Government. Earlier today, the Minister for Just Transition, Employment and Fair Work and I met the cluster representatives. We are affirming that we are continuing to support CCS Scotland and to outline our call to the UK Government. I can also confirm that the First Minister will be writing to the Prime Minister to make the strong case for the exhilaration of the cluster to track 1 in the coming days. CCS Scotland will play an essential role in industrial decarbonisation in Scotland and worldwide. The planned Scottish cluster will play a vital role in a just transition ensuring that Scotland reaches its net zero goal by 2045. The Scottish Government will continue to press for track 1 status for the Scottish cluster and to support the development and deployment of CCS Scotland that is compatible with our climate change targets. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow again around 20 minutes for questions. I would encourage members who wish to ask a question to press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible or place an R in the chat function. Let's start with Liam Kerr. We are all disappointed by this decision, but let's be clear. Far from being illogical or indeed inexplicable, this was an objective process based on objective criteria, which the Scottish Government did not raise any issues about. It was judged against which of the bids hit those criteria. Let's be also clear. This is not the end of Acorn, but the beginning of an ambition to have four clusters running by 2030. Quasie Quarteng says that Acorn will almost certainly be built in the next few years as part of the second phase. The UK Government continues to work with them to ensure readiness. I say continues because the cabinet secretary seems to have conveniently forgotten that the UK has also produced an energy right paper. A £16 billion North Sea transition deal established Aberdeen as an energy transition zone with £27 million worth of support and already given £31 million in support to Acorn. Let me ask cabinet secretary. The Acorn project partners have stated publicly that they intend to maintain the project timeline to be operational by the end of 2026. The UK is committed to supporting them both financially and with management. What is the Scottish Government officially offered to the cluster to ensure that it can proceed by 2026? Secondly, one solution is for the Scottish Government to commit to fund the project. Will it do so? Finally, how much precisely of the proposed just transition fund is earmarked to go towards CCS projects? It is interesting that, given that Liam Kerr only a few months ago was sitting himself up as the champion for the Acorn project with his article in the press and journal, he has been quite literally sold down the river by his colleagues in Westminster. I generally suggest to Liam Kerr that he should not be in this chamber disappointed by his colleagues in Westminster. He should be angry at the way in which they are treated by the people of the north-east of Scotland in this decision, not simply disappointed. I think that he should be speaking up a bit more for the people in the north-east of Scotland in demonstrating that. If it is not illogical to double your target for the use of carbon dioxide storage in the UK in your net zero strategy, but the day before, do not support the most cost-effective, largest capacity CCS project in the UK to deliver that. I am sorry, I do not know what illogical is then, because to me it is very clear that there is a lack of consistency in the UK approach, which is why it smacks and smells more of politics rather than science. I am afraid that the member should be standing up to challenge that. Let me say to the points that the member has made. One of the things that is very clear from the discussion that I have had with the cluster members today is that they have got no clarity from the UK Government on what reserve status actually means. It has not been explained to them what support will be available to them, there is no explanation of what funding will be available to them, there is no timeline being set by the UK Government on what reserve status means, how long reserve status is meant to last for, what the UK Government has done is that it has left the project high and dry. I assure the member that we will work with the cluster to make sure that we keep the pressure on the UK Government to stick to the promise and to deliver on the ACORN project in the Scottish cluster, because it is critical not just to Scotland's net zero targets, it is critical to the UK's net zero targets. Monica Lennon Thank you to the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. I feel that it is regrettable that here we are on the eve of COP26 and we have the UK Government and the Scottish Government at loggerheads when we do need to have constructive dialogue to tackle the climate emergency. Cabinet secretary, in your statement you have acknowledged that there are concerns about the performance of carbon capture technologies and consistency with climate targets. For example, friends of the earth Scotland question whether the CCS is falsely positioned as a climate solution when the technology is largely unproven and untested. I wonder what the Scottish Government is doing to unpick those concerns and to allay those fears. Can the cabinet secretary give assurance that those technologies are not being seen as a silver bullet and that other measures that can help in the short term including improved access to public transport and improved energy efficiency will be continued at pace? If there is a failure in this process on the eve of COP26 to take the serious action that is necessary to tackle climate change, I am afraid that responsibility rests at the door of 10 Downing Street in failing to provide the support to the Scottish cluster. From Grangemouth, right up to the St Fergus terminal, it is critical not just to helping to support that we achieve our net zero targets but to a whole range of industries that are supporting it in order to help to decarbonise their industrial processes. It is mission critical to many of them in being able to deliver that and it is critical to the jobs that are dependent on it as well. I am afraid that the issue about loggerheads and the responsibility for this issue rests fairly and squarely with the UK Government. I can assure the member that there are those who raise questions about it, but as we take advice from the Committee on Climate Change in these matters, they have said that the use of CCS is, as I said in my statement, a necessity, not an option. It is a technology that is in its infancy, but it has got the real potential to deliver real change. That is why we are also very clear that the deployment of net zero technology of this nature has to be compatible with achieving our net zero targets by 2045. That is exactly what our commitment is and it is why we support the ACORN project and why it is so important to making sure that we reach our statutory targets. Decision not to back the ACORN project is another betrayal of the north-east of Scotland by the Tories who previously cut the £1 billion of funding for the carbon capture scheme at Peterhead after a huge amount of progress and investment. The Committee on Climate Change specifically said that CCS is essential to us being able to meet the targets that were put forward in the climate change act. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the ACORN project was the obvious project to give support to? That failure to do so is an absolutely political decision. The UK Government is yet again holding Scotland's progress back and we cannot rely on this UK Government to ever stand up for Scotland's interests. There is absolutely no doubt to those whom I spoke to many across industry over recent months that the ACORN project was viewed and the Scottish cluster in particular was viewed as being the most deliverable, cost-effective, ready-to-go project when it came to delivering on CCS. It was the clear project. It is not just a project that is able to deliver at an early stage in the mid-2020s. It is also a project that—I do not decryde the other two projects because we need them alongside the Scottish cluster as well—is the only project that had the ability to allow the shipment of carbon dioxide, which was planned to support areas such as the south of Wales and other parts of the south of England, where industries are looking to decarbonise and they wanted to use the Scottish cluster as part of that process, an ACORN project in particular. It is a project that supports not just Scottish jobs but jobs well beyond Scotland in other parts of England. It was mission critical to supporting when doing that. I am angry that we are in a situation where the UK Government has let down a sector despite its significant work in this particular project and giving them the impression that the project was going to get the green light to have pulled a rug from under their feet at the very last moment. The repercussions of that are significant and it is important that the UK Government recognises the implications that it has for the sector, not just in the north-east and in other parts of Scotland but in other parts of the UK and that it revisits the matter and revisits it urgently. I am keen to get through all the questions that I would ask the questioners and the cabinet secretary to be as brief as they can next. It is Brian Whittle who joins us remotely and Jackie Dunbar. Glacan said that the weekend of the SNP's petulant manufactured row with the Westminster Government over free ports may have contributed to that decision and that the SNP would create similar obstacles should the ACORN have won. Obviously, we know that it was done on an objective criteria, but the SNP's grievance approach of continual desire to create discord is well known. All the Scottish Government now works constructively with the Westminster Government to ensure that ACORN receives the appropriate support to proceed from both Governments as soon as possible to the benefit of the environment and the Scottish economy. There we have it, Presiding Officer, from Brian Whittle, manufactured reasons as to why the UK Government chose not to go ahead with ACORN around free ports utter rubbish and that there is no truth in it whatsoever and that it should be treated with the contempt with which it desires. What I can say to Mr Whittle is that, on several occasions, we made a direct offer to the UK Government to provide support to the project. To date, I am still waiting for a response from the UK Government to my correspondence on that very matter. Sadly, they do not appear to have chosen to prioritise it and, given her decision last week, they have chosen not to go ahead with the project end of. However, you can be sure of Mr Whittle that we will continue to push the case for the Scottish cluster and to make sure that the UK Government hears the voices of the people of Scotland on that very important issue. Jackie Dunbar to be followed by Michael Marra. Scottish business leaders, including Sir Ian Wood, have written to the Prime Minister, arguing that the Scottish cluster offers the potential to create, safeguard and continue to support tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs, both directly and in the supply chain of the existing energy industry in the north-east as well as throughout Scotland. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the UK Government should listen to those voices and not just ignore them? I very much welcome the letter that has gone from Sir Ian Wood and a number of others calling on the Prime Minister to address the issue. It is an issue that I have discussed in recent months with Sir Ian Wood and the importance of the ACORN project and the Scottish cluster. Given his expertise and knowledge in this area, he sees that it has been mission critical to the future of North Sea oil and gas and to the transition in the sector. It would be fair to say that the general feedback that I have had from within the sector is one of shock. Some put flabbergasted at the decision by the UK Government, so it is important that the UK Government listens to the voices of reason from people like Sir Ian Wood and that they respond to that constructively and reverse that decision quickly. I sincerely hope that the COP delegations are not taking diplomacy and negotiation lessons from the minister, or frankly from some of the representatives opposite. There was no answer from the minister on whether the Scottish Government would act to support the project themselves. We must work together in that case. This Government is a duty to make this sector work by whatever means. What progress has been made by investing in skills based in the north-east of Scotland to ensure that the region is at the forefront of a jobs first energy transition? We have provided support over the last couple of years to the ACORN project as it moves through its feasibility programme of work in supporting it and carrying out that work, given the importance of it. Secondly, we have already made a clear commitment to supporting the deployment of carbon capture utilisation storage in Scotland as part of our energy emergent technologies fund, which we remain committed to doing over the coming years. Part of how much of that we can support is dependent upon the decision by the UK Government, because a key part of that is tied up in regulations and powers that the UK Government does not have, which we do not have the powers to intervene in. However, there may be other areas around the project that we can continue to provide support and assistance to, and we are actively considering that. However, what I would say to remember is that I do not think now is a time for us to start unpicking elements of the Scottish cluster. What is important here is that we point out to the UK Government their failure and the serious mistake that they have made, and they need to address that urgently, because of the potential consequences. On the member's final point, I can assure the member that one of the key actions that we want to see coming through our north-east and Murray transition deal is helping to support that skills transition, assisting those who are in carbon intensive industries moving into zero-carbon industries. That will be a key focus of both the training and the work that will go forward as part of the north-east transition deal. The SNP Scottish Government has committed to investing £500 million in the north-east and Murray over the next 10 years to accelerate the transition to net zero and support highly skilled jobs and livelihoods in the oil and gas sector. If the UK Government is serious about a just transition for the north-east, does the cabinet secretary think that they should match that funding commitment? I think that they should. We have asked them to do so. They should match that, given the economic benefits that the UK has obtained from oil and gas extraction over many decades on the back of Scotland's resources and the north-east of Scotland in particular. It is about time that they stepped up and helped to support that transition. Matching us in that £500 million transition fund for the north-east and Murray alongside going ahead with the Scottish cluster in tier 1 would be a step in the right direction in demonstrating that leadership from the UK Government. After years of delay during which carbon capture was on, then off and then on again, the biggest loser, I have to say, has been the planet. I will support the Government's call for this decision to be reversed. Does the minister agree with me that what is most important is that this project actually happens this time? Yes, I do agree. We have already had the false on. I think that it was Ed Davie who made that promise during the referendum campaign, which was very short lived after the referendum result. That is why this time we cannot allow the UK Government to get away with pulling the same trick yet again on the people of north-east and the people of Scotland. I welcome the support of the member in getting behind us in making sure that we do everything that we can to pressurise the UK Government to reverse the decision and to put a Scottish cluster in track 1. The triple whammy of a downturn in oil and gas, Covid and Brexit have been devastating for our north-east communities. We desperately needed this investment, which would have been based in my constituency of Bampshire and Buckingham coast. It would have helped to deliver that just transition. The Scottish Conservatives have described this move by the UK Government as a lukewarm disappointing. My constituents are not disappointed. They are feeling betrayed, angry and overlooked once again. Will the cabinet secretary join me in urging Conservative MSPs in the chamber, particularly those who represent the north-east, to stand up for their constituents and urge their colleagues in the UK Government to reverse this decision and to support this vital project? I think that one of the things that we need to recognise here and the desire that I understand from Conservative members is to try and give the impression that everything is going to be okay with the ACORN project in the Scottish cluster, is to just give it time. The problem with that approach is that there are very significant investment decisions that have to be made by companies on where they are going to support the development of CCS technology. Those decisions are being made now, not two, three, four, five years time or an indefinite timeframe, as reserve status provides, because there is a lack of clarity around this for the whole of the cluster. It is important that we do not allow what is the fundamentals of this project to be lost because of its importance. I hope that members on the Conservative benches will get behind us in supporting this and will put as much pressure on their colleagues at Westminster to reverse this decision. We have three more questioners. I intend to allow all of them in, but the questions will need to be brief and so will be the responses. Mark Ruskell joins us remotely. The cabinet secretary is aware that our parties do not have a shared vision for the role of CCS, and the technology is repeatedly over-promised and under-delivered around the world. Relying on it to cut a quarter of Scotland's emissions is risky. All the parties in the last Parliament agreed that there needs to be a plan B developed to meet our climate targets and deliver a just transition without a reliance on CCS. Does the cabinet secretary recognise the importance of working out that plan B now, rather than pinning all our hopes on the technology that may turn out to be credible in time? The advice that we have from the Committee on Climate Change is the important role that zero-emission technologies will play in helping to meet our statutory climate targets. It is one of the things that they have directly referenced. I respect the fact that we have a difference of view on the use and deployment of CCS, the Scottish Government is supportive of it and continues to be supportive of it, including the Scottish cluster and the ACORN project, and we will continue to be so going forward. We have to recognise that it will play and is likely to play an important part in meeting Scotland's statutory climate targets, and that is the approach that we are going to continue to take moving forward. It is important that we recognise the role that the technology will have to play in helping to support us in becoming a net zero-emission by 2045. Earlier this year, Stuart Hazeldine, a Professor of Carbon Capture and Storage at the University of Edinburgh, gave evidence at the Economy, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. In response to being asked what was needed to make CCS a success, he said, and I quote, in Scotland we do not have a clear industrial road map for the circularity of our heat or carbon and for putting that back where it came from. Will the cabinet secretary agree to develop a clear industrial road map for Scotland? Let's say not lose sight of the critical issue here, and that is the development of CCS technology. One of the benefits that you have with the ACORN project in the Scottish cluster is the benefits of being first mover in some of the development of the technology and how it can then be utilised and deployed in different areas from what it was originally developed. That is why the project is so important to help to develop that route map, to help to create the opportunity that this new technology can develop in a number of different areas and how it can be utilised to help to meet our statutory climate change targets. I assure the member that our support for ACORN and CCS is to make sure that we get the benefits of the development of the technology and how that can be deployed in a number of different sectors, not just in oil and gas. Fiona Hyslop, it may have been my fault for not pre-announcing you, Ms Hyslop. Thank you very much. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the advanced stage and capability of the ACORN project would and should not only underpin the just transition needed in the north-east of Scotland but could and should be the quickest, fastest way of sharing that knowledge and deployment on a global stage so that the world can move more quickly to decarbonise, such as has been the global interest over the last decade and previously in the work in Scotland? Does he think that the UK Government just doesn't care about its responsibilities to the north-east? As briefly as possible, please, cabinet secretary. There is absolutely no doubt that the Scottish cluster is a key part to delivering a just transition. We have saw the failures of UK Governments in the past with deindustrialisation and not ensuring a just transition, and we cannot allow that mistake to be repeated again, particularly in the north-east of Scotland. However, there is no doubt that one of the benefits of moving early with this project, which is giving its ability to move at an early stage, is the knowledge and skills that it builds up, which can then be exported and deployed in other parts of the world, supporting other nations and being able to become a zero nation. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. It would be a slight break before we start the next item of business.