 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 194 in the name of Jillian Martin on carbon capture utilisation and storage as part of Scotland's net zero ambitions. The debate will be included without any questions being put. I would ask members who wish to contribute to press the request-to-speak buttons, or place an R in the chat function and a Colin Gilliam Martin to open the debate for around seven minutes. Ieithiis cyfraistio'r myfyrdd hyn o'r cyfraistio'r lluniau yng nghych o ymwylltebwn yn ymgwyllteb ddigonu'r cystafol yn yr unrhyw i'ch peth gynnig oedd oeddennog ac yn cyfrodiu arnau chi eisiau argynnu cyrpoedd ac rydyn ni'n gyrgyladau hefyd yng nghyryddiadau ddigonu yr Unig a ddych chi'n gwneud yw'r cyfrideid lle i dŵrbeth. rai mae'n dwylo sydd yn ei welfa oherwydd dwyliadau sydd yn adneud a chyfnodaeth mewn cyddynial o bobl yn gyffredig yn Gwal y Cymru a'r eich lluniau bod oedd yn rhaglen gwyllwch gysyllt i nyfodol nhw hynny'n dechreu'r drafod ac yn mynd i ynlleun i gwyllwch, ond rwy'n gweld hynny'n dechreu'r drafod. Mae argymät yr ydw i, cynnyddiaeth Cymru, yn gallu i'n cymryd o'r lluniau aeolol cluster to be given track 1 status 2. In fact, just last night, Deirdre Michie of Oil and Gas UK said that the cross-party group in Oil and Gas, convened by my friend Fergus Ewing, went even further. She said, we should be throwing the kitchens sink at this. There was no point in to— I will do. Jackie Demour. Thank you. Isn't it the case that if George Osborne hadn't pulled the funding from the Peter head carbon capture project in 2014, that that technology would be up and running by now? Gillian Motton. Jackie Baillie makes a very good point. We will never forget the disappointment. Jackie Dunbar, I think. Who did I say? I said Jackie Baillie. I'm so sorry, Jackie, and the other Jackie. Jackie Dunbar makes a really good point. I will never forget the sense of betrayal, particularly the people of Peterhead. Indeed, industry partners in Shell and other companies had when the defeat from that project. Deirdre Michie said that we should be throwing the kitchens sink at this. There is no point in taking bets on a winner. We should be giving all five projects equal support. We also need to wake up to the fact that our current power, heating, transport, construction and manufacturing systems still emit more CO2 than the targets that we aspire to. Until we drastically reduce those emissions—and that's not an overnight process by any means—we can reduce their harm by capturing them and, in many cases, using them as materials for other things. In short, CCUS is the answer to—I'll take an intervention from Mark Ruskell. Mark Ruskell. Can I thank you for giving way? I'm just thinking that if we throw the kitchen sink at CCS, where will the public funds come to crowd in investment in renewables? Surely we need to make choices about which technology we wish to deploy public money to get the biggest bang for a buck and the biggest cuts in carbon emissions? I agree to a certain extent because it's not either or. It's both combined. As long as we have emissions out and CO2 emissions out there, for industries that may find it really difficult to decarbonise, we need to have some way of capturing that carbon. However, that does not preclude us from doing the things that you have mentioned. We have had that conversation before. Of course, everything around CCUS is backed up by the Committee for Climate Change, whom our advice to the UK and Scottish Governments stressed that CCUS is a key requirement in meeting our climate change targets, which I'm afraid I've taken two interventions. Of course, they are in line with the Paris agreement that we signed up to, and the commitments made at subsequent COPs, including this year's in Glasgow. The climate change committee's 2019 net zero report states that, given its strategic importance in achieving decarbonisation, CCUS is a necessity for a net zero target. The committee's chief executive, Chris Stark, said that the ACORN project is a slam dunk, in my view, for support. Of course, I have already taken two interventions that I won't be taking any more. Of course, there is another very important thread to this, and that is that the just transition for our workers is that we reduce our reliance on burning oil and gas over time. This is not just a north-east issue. Families all over Scotland are reliant on oil and gas and their supply chains for their incomes, either directly or indirectly. A project such as ACORN, which is situated in Peterhead in my colleague Karen Adams's constituency, will be well served by the talent pool that we already have in the north-east, and that is another significant argument for it to be put into track 1 immediately. We have possibly the most concentrated transferable skills base right on our doorstep, as well as the universities and local companies to enable the innovation that will surround the project. I am aware of a few university-led projects that have already been ready to go uses for the captured carbon, including one that came to speak to me a couple of years ago that will convert the carbon into fire-retardant bricks for housebuilding. In economic terms, the Scottish cluster will contribute £1.4 billion per year GVA on average up to the year 2050. Job creation will begin as early as 2022 if the cluster proceeds on track 1, with the construction phase alone supporting 7,000 jobs, and once completed, the cluster will support an average of 15,000 jobs per year right up into 2050. That is a significant amount of jobs. Longer-term expansion of the cluster would unlock further economic benefits, safeguarding of industrial jobs across the whole of the UK, particularly in those sites that are otherwise hard to decarbonise. There are so many people who get this. I include my Conservative friend and North East colleague Liam Kerr, who wrote this in a very good article in The Press and Journal in August. He said, as the UK looks to demonstrate global leadership on low-carbon technologies ahead of COP26, I am calling on MPs and MSPs to back the Scottish cluster. With its energy expertise and heritage, existing infrastructure and ready to deliver projects, Scotland is an ideal place to start this next phase of our net zero journey. I hope that he will join me in urging his party at UK level to listen to his words, because Liam Kerr is absolutely right when he can bank that. Sir Ian Wood, on hearing, I will do. Liam Kerr, I am genuinely grateful for Gillian Martin's words. I do not disagree with an awful lot of what she said today. Crucially, Gillian Martin will acknowledge that the UK Government has backed Acorn so far, with £31 million. Is she aware of how much the Scottish Government has backed Acorn for so far? Gillian Martin, that is probably a question for the minister. It is a case of, if you have put that investment in already, why kick it into the long grass? That is really my point. There is no time to waste on that. Sir Ian Wood, on hearing the news that the Scottish cluster was kicked into the reserve list by the UK Government, also did not mince his words. He said, This decision makes little economic or environmental sense and is a real blow to Scotland. Scotland is the most cost-effective place to begin CCS in the UK, given the capacity for CO2 storage in the North Sea and the existing oil and gas infrastructure that is available. One of the reasons that the Acorn project is so vital is that it has the capacity to store carbon from industrial sites across the UK, including Enneas at Grangemouth, the Cavendish project at Thames Estuary, as well as more local sites such as Peterhead power station. In fact, there is a memorandum of understanding that it is already in place between Acorn and the Mitters across the UK. Jackie Dunbar was right to flag up in her intervention about the history around CCS. It is another betrayal in that respect. I will finish now. I have run out of time. I have taken too many interventions. We cannot make the same mistake again. We must all, regardless of party, urge the UK Government to give the Scottish cluster track 1 status immediately for the sake of just transition, thousands of livelihoods but, most of all, for the sake of our drive to the net zero targets that we all signed up to. I am conscious of the number of people who want to speak in this debate, so I am keen to get everybody in. If anybody wants an intervention, could they make an intervention rather than intervene from a sedentary position? I call Douglas Lumson, who will be followed by Karen Adam. I thank Julia Martin for bringing this important member's debate today. As the carbon cluster remains an important project for the UK Government, I would like to start by saying that I very much hope that the project will go ahead and as quickly as possible. However, the SNP position on carbon capture is quite frankly ridiculous. The position seems to assume that you only have either carbon capture or oil and gas. I have to tell Julia Martin that it is a false choice. Carbon capture works hand in glove with the oil and gas industry. In fact, the oil and gas industry is leading the way in new technologies associated with carbon capture, utilisation and so on. Yes, I will. Can the member point to any part in the speech that I have just given on whether I have made that assertion? I thank the member for that intervention. It is more the SNP position, not Julia Martin's actual position, as we heard from the First Minister just last week, that it was not just cambo oil fields that she wanted to stop, but all new oil fields to stop and to think of the impact that that would have on the jobs and on the north-east. That is a betrayal, quite correct. However, the SNP position, while reckless, is not as absurd as the green partner's position. The Green Party website states that the Greens will oppose public investment in carbon capture and storage as it is unproven, and the vast majority of projects are linked to enhanced oil recovery. However, thanks to a couple of ministerial cars and a bump in salary, I am sure that those green principles will be thrown out the double-glazed well-insulated window. Maybe the member should send a letter to her green colleagues and try to get them on board with the carbon capture project, because we need carbon capture and new oil and gas developments. Julia Martin's constituent, former First Minister Alex Salmond, commented only this week that he stressed the need for new oil and gas developments and how vital they are for the north-east. He said that, without it, it is not just farewell to tens of thousands of north of Scotland's votes for the SNP. Much more seriously, it is most modern no more, green's mouth no more, St Fergus no more and independence no more. He knows that the SNP is betraying the north-east, and I would urge the north-east SNP members to call on their party to stop this constant talking down of the area and the energy industry and get behind the industry and start protecting the 100,000 jobs that are at stake. The press and journal is reporting today that the north-east recovery is falling behind the rest of the country. It is time for the SNP to focus on the day job and start understanding the realities of the situation that we are currently living in. To cut oil and gas exploration means that we will have to import more and vital jobs will go elsewhere. Instead of offering solutions, the SNP simply adopts the usual grievance politics of blaming Westminster with no proposal or ideas of the other one. Colleagues, carbon capture is a fantastic initiative for the north-east in partnership with the industries that have brought wealth and prosperity to our region. Carbon capture is possible to do while protecting vital jobs, meaning our net zero commitments and working with industry. I want this project to go ahead, it will go ahead and I am confident of that. Instead, the SNP grievance project focuses on talking down the project as if it is somehow game over. Government support or not, the project is highly dependent on external private investment and the SNP's constant cries of grievance is putting that investment at risk. The north-east deserves better than this failed coalition of chaos that turns its back on the north-east at every opportunity. This Government's failure to invest, engage or support the north-east is a disgrace. They prefer to play grievance politics than actually engage, and that is to the detriment of Scotland. I now call on Karen Adam, who will be followed by Paul Sweeney, who joins us remotely around four minutes. I thank Gillian Martin for bringing this forward for us to debate. The Westminster decision to relegate Scotland's ACORN project to the second division is an illustration of misunderstanding the potential of the Scottish energy industry and betrayal of a future generation as we witness what has been called the terrifying march of climate change. It would have been a case of third-time lucky with the first attempt 20 years ago and, in 2015, the £1 billion UK-wide CCS competition, which was cancelled by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne. Even in 2018, the UK Government admitted that the then infant ACORN demonstrator project had merits. Perhaps if the proposal to build a peppa pig land in Peterhead had been on the table, we may have had a different outcome. Sign officer, I may jest, but this is no laughing matter, and neither is the investment in a just transition needed to secure jobs and transfer from the inevitable wind-down of the fossil fuel sector. The experienced and hard workers of the energy sector in the northeast deserve security. The northeast as a whole needs this investment, which will undoubtedly benefit Scotland and the world, as we potentially lead the way in just transition and innovation in the carbon capture and sequestration industry. I have recently had meetings with ACORN prior to and following the recent decision, and I can say that I am convinced that ACORN will roll up their sleeves and will prove Westminster wrong one way or another. This will not be the end of their story, their story and Scotland's story. It is not easy to forget that, at the beginning of this year, INEOS and its joint venture partner in Grangemouth, Petrochina committed to developing Scotland's first CCS project with ACORN. In July, it was announced that the ACORN CCS project agreed to partner with INEOS and Petronius at Grangemouth to capture and store up to 1 million tonnes of CO2 by 2027. If the Tories will not support ACORN, I am confident that there will be those that may well do so. If they do not, as energy voice has said, maybe it will be time to say to ACORN, get on with it and tell the Tories to take a hike. Once again, so much opportunity left to the long grass of what seems like punishment. My predecessor Stuart Stevenson had said that, if we have had enough of stalling, the UK Government must now get on with delivering the project at Peterhead. To all intents and purposes, as failed yet again, it is difficult to be objective when we see the preferred bidders as two competing projects in what can only be described as redwall territory. To add pain to the loss of jobs, the loss of socioeconomic advantage and to add injury to the despair and betrayal felt in and around my constituency were left without any meaningful explanation as to why the ACORN project has not been chosen in the top league. It is perceived as a purely political decision. As the industry has observed objectivity, that got lost somewhere. This is worth repeating. Sir Ian Wood, another stakeholder whom I met not long ago, has said that Scotland is the most cost-effective place to begin CCUS in the UK, given the capacity for CO2 storage in the North Sea and the existing oil and gas infrastructure available to repurpose for CO2 transport and storage. He also urged Westminster to rank ACORN alongside the winning so-called tier 1 projects. Sign officer, I finished by speaking up for my constituents who have voiced their anger at the decision. Thousands of jobs not created a huge missed opportunity. ACORN will keep the door open and the ear open to Westminster, I have no doubt, but if we adopt the tone of COP in Glasgow, we do not have plenty of time to make a real and meaningful difference. Opportunities must be seized, we must live adventurously and others will not wait while Westminster drags their heels. Just get on with the investment, do the right thing for the people that you propose to have broad shoulders for. I thank the member for Aberdeenshire East for bringing this very vital debate to the chamber today and to emphasise the criticality of this project to Scotland achieving its net zero target by 2045. That is why the climate committee described it as a necessity, not an option. Last month, the UK Government announced that the ACORN project would not be selected and the first round of plans for carbon capture and storage was surely galling for all of us to witness. The cluster is widely regarded as providing the most comprehensive business plan by industry leaders and the UK Government's announcement was condemned widely indeed to Sir Ian Wood describing it as being deeply disappointing and urging the UK Government to think again. Obvious carbon reduction benefits are clear, the proposal would have seen over 26,000 workers also being transitioned out of the oil and gas sector into lower carbon alternatives over the next 10 years, which is also a crucial aspect as achieving climate justice for workers. We all know how important the transition away from fossil fuels will be if we are to meet those targets, but we also know the importance of providing a just transition for workers. That is why it is particularly galling and disheartening. Particularly focusing on energy production, Peterhead power station is Scotland's largest and only thermal generator. Without the ability to carbon capture, that will put in jeopardy Scotland's ability to meet the 2045 target for net zero if we are not able to decarbonise the grid. It is an interesting junk to the debate earlier on in First Minister's question about nuclear power. If we do not have that base load decarbonised, we are going to be in a really difficult position. We should not be surprised, of course, because in 2015, the Conservatives rode back on their commitment to the £1 billion carbon capture storage programme that was proposed for Longanna and Peterhead, and it was spelled out in their 2015 manifesto. This year, we have seen the Tories break their promise on tax rises, rip up manifesto commitments on protecting the Chippew law compensions, and now we have this broken promise in the wake of COP26. It is hardly surprising, but it is certainly shocking. It is not just the broken promises and clear disdain for the Scottish cluster that is galling, but the potential cost implications that go along with it. I am happy to give way. Stephen Catt. Paul Sweeney has seen the criteria against which the various projects were scored and ranked. Has he actually seen the criteria? Paul Sweeney. I have examined the criteria, and that is why I am all the more perplexed at the decision that was made. I have seen the scores, and I have to make it clear to you that I am perplexed at the artificial rationing of resource and investment in that. We need all of that happening concurrently. We do not need it happening sequentially, and that is the biggest problem. The argument that it does not help when you are trying to advocate the benefits of pooling and sharing resources in the United Kingdom when that sort of thing happens. Surely someone somewhere in Whitehall, particularly in the Treasury, would have seen the political implications of that and made it clear that the Scottish cluster had to buy priority. Not only that, but it is because of the Chancellor's dogmatic adherence to the 3 per cent of GDP cap on capital investment that this has been rationed in the way that it has. When the UK debt borrowing is lost in history and the debt burden facing the country is that it is lost in history, why on earth would not you want to pump that investment in now to unlock huge multiplier effects in increasing employment and increasing gross value added for the Scottish economy? It is a one-way bet, and it is just baffling that the Conservatives have not seized this opportunity. I would urge them to reconsider their position. We really need the Government to look again at this. It is a decision that will hamper long-term investment in the Scottish cluster and investment that is desperately relied on and will harm our chances of reaching that net zero target while providing a just transition for workers. We need all five UK projects in the pipeline for carbon capture and storage happening simultaneously and now, not just the high net and the T-side Humber East Coast cluster. Scotland has 60 per cent of the UK's storage potential, so surely it makes sense to have carbon capture and storage presence in Scotland on that basis. I would urge the Scottish Conservatives to speak to their college in Westminster and have that decision reversed. It is the right thing to do for our economy, for our climate ambitions, and if the Conservatives had any real ambitions for Scotland, that would surely be a no-brainer. I am conscious of the large number of members who still want to contribute to the debate, so I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Gillian Martin to move such a motion. The question is that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are members agreed? Thank you, that is agreed, and I now call on Fergus Ewing, who will be followed by Maurice Golden, around four minutes, please, Mr Ewing. Presiding Officer, this debate is, I believe, one of the most important of our time, and therefore Gillian Martin is to be congratulated for bringing it forward. I would like to begin by thanking members from virtually all parties for attending the Cours Party group on oil and gas yesterday evening. It was really informative, and I hope that we can work together across the chamber to promote objectives, which I think increasingly we should be able to find a consensus upon. Part of that consensus must be that the Scottish cluster, the ACORN project, perhaps improved, perhaps with more emitters and more CO2, must go ahead if we are to achieve the net zero targets. It must be said that the record of the UK Government on CCS is one of consistent breach of promises. Promises were made first by ministers in respect of Flanganet, and then in 2014 by Ed Davie and David Cameron, who visited Peterhead Power Station to announce that that would be the CCS scheme, announced with a fanfare of trumpets, a fanfare, Presiding Officer, of veritable, Wagnerian volume, as I recall, at the time, passing themselves on the back on what they were about to do for Scotland. Now, ACORN, number three, Scotland, CCS, once, twice, three times a loser under UK Government decisions. That is the record of fact, but there is a fourth opportunity, and we must grasp that, Presiding Officer. I think that the member might be interested in what I have got to say. We should work with experts in Scotland. The Scottish Centre for Carbon Capture and Stories to the Minister will know when I was in his position for five years. I worked with people like Professor Stuart Hazeldin, a world leader, and who, with Drs Emma Martin-Roberts and Stuart Goffill, published a report earlier this month that said in short that, if we proceed at the current rate, we can only capture 10 per cent of the CO2 that we require to meet net zero. I was not the brightest boy in the class, but I never went into an exam saying, I'm determined to achieve 10 per cent. That's not ambition. That's capitulation. So what do we need to do? I see this in all sincerity and with absolute conviction that we need a number of things. We need a successful, working, thriving oil and gas sector. That's because without such a sector, we cannot deliver CCS. They have the expertise and no one else does. So if you think about it, if we accept, and everybody accepts people and the fringes accept, that CCS is a sine qua non of reaching net zero, we need an industry to deliver it, Presiding Officer. I think that we should recognise that the North Sea operators led by OG UK have set a world-class standard, setting two cutting emissions by 50 per cent by 2030, cutting flaring, cutting methane, using the most carbon-friendly leased emitting practices. As Sir Ian Wood said, if we stop domestic production, we import more gas from Qatar, 59 kilograms per tonne as opposed to 22, we increase, not reduce emissions. Let me finish by saying that we must go ahead now with the ACORN project. And if the Prime Minister doesn't listen to this debate today and says no for a force time, he will be committing an act of betrayal worthy of Cassius and Brutus in the assassination of their great friend Julius Caesar. The Prime Minister is fond of quoting Latin phrases. The last word on Scottish CCS, on the tombstone of CCS in Scotland, must not be et to Boris. Thank you, Mr Ewing. I now call on Maurice Golden to be followed by Mark Ruskell with the Golden Four Minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Let me start by saying how pleased I am that the SNP agrees with so much of Conservative policy on carbon capture. Like us, they support the technology, want to play a part in net zero and believe that it can help to create a just transition in the north-east. With common goals, it makes sense to collaborate. It was deeply disappointing to see the SNP do the opposite this week. Instead of working together on carbon capture, the SNP issued a needlessly hostile letter to Scottish Conservative politicians. Full of confrontational language, it was more a political rant than a sincere attempt at dialogue. It is a bizarre choice to target colleagues who share common ground with you. Let me be clear. I was disappointed that the fantastic Acorn bid did not place higher, as were my Scottish Conservative colleagues. The bid is still live. I am very grateful to Maurice Golden. What interaction have you had with the decision makers in the UK Government about your disappointment? I have had no interaction with the UK Government. I know that some of my colleagues have been representing us in that, but it is important to note that I do not have a reporting mechanism to the UK Government. I am not accountable to the UK Government and I have no bosses in Westminster other than when Douglas Ross is there. To suggest otherwise is absolutely outrageous. The British Government is still engaging on it, and that is all the more reason to work together to get it over the line in round two. So why are the SNP trying to pick a fight? Let me explain. Their hostile letter is not really about carbon capture, net zero or the north-east. It is just a tacky PR stunt, trying to whip up grievance at Britain and divert attention from SNP failings. For starters, why are the SNP targeting Scottish Conservatives? We support carbon capture. It is the Greens who oppose it. They would shut down Project Acorn in a heartbeat, so where is the SNP letter to the Greens? Better yet, why do not the SNP use that energy to come up with a clear industrial road map to support carbon capture? Professor Stuart Hazeldine has already warned about the lack of one and made it clear that it is the British Government forging ahead on that matter. We know that the British Government is serious about a low-carbon future. Just look at the North Sea transition deal, cutting emissions, supporting up to 40,000 jobs and investing up to £16 billion in new technologies, including carbon capture. The same cannot be said for the SNP. Its intog plan puts a paltry 100 megawatt cap on floating offshore wind innovation projects versus 300 megawatts in the rest of the UK. Their failure to act will put Scottish projects at a disadvantage and risk costing the North East its preeminence in renewables. That is the sort of foot-dragging failure that the SNP are trying to hide. Their £100 million green jobs fund took over a year to pay anything out. They have delayed the deposit return scheme. Their active travel target won't be met for 290 years, added to that recycling target failed, biodiversity target failed, renewable heat target failed and on emissions they have failed, failed and failed again three years in the row. When will SNP MSPs stand up to their hollywood bosses who continually fail to tackle climate change? So, let me be clear. The Scottish Conservatives want to tackle climate change and see carbon capture to succeed, and we most certainly want to see the North East succeed. If the SNP share those goals, then let's them see them ditch the cheap PR stunts and work with us for the common good. Thank you, Mr Golden. I'll call Mark Ruskell to be followed by Liam Kerr. Again, four minutes, Mr Ruskell. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank Gillian Martin for raising the topic for debate here. Of course, in her previous role as convener of the Environment, Climate Change Committee, she'll be aware of the unanimous cross-party concerns about a reliance on CCS to cut Scotland's emissions by a quarter by 2030. In fact, the committee went further. It called for the Scottish Government to produce a plan B alternative in its report on the climate change plan just in February this year. As we head towards the beginning of a new climate change plan cycle next year, I hope that the minister is aware of the pressing need to come up with that plan B. Capturing carbon emissions and storing them underground appears at face value like a part of the solution. The unfortunate reality here is that the history of CCS deployment so far has been one of over-promising and under-delivery. If I can finish my sentence, at a time when we need technology that can be rapidly and cost-effectively deployed in the next eight years, if I can get my time back, I'll certainly allow that. I can give you time back to Liam Martin. Just a very quick intervention. Really, would the member not agree that the failure of CCS has not been to do with the technology, it's been to do with the fact that funding has repeatedly been withdrawn from it? Mark Ruskell? No, I think the global context is that there has been a technical failure in terms of capture of emissions and that's just the reality. I'll come on to some of that a little bit later on. The key test here is whether CCS accelerates a phase-out of fossil fuels to keep us under 1.5 degrees or whether it just builds in dependence delaying a just transition while diverting and crowding out investment in renewables. I want to pose an example here, which is about blue hydrogen that would be produced using a corn project for the carbon storage element. The current plans are to blend blue hydrogen at a rate of 20 per cent into the gas grid, but the question then is about the other 80 per cent of the fuel mix because it will continue to be natural gas burned in boilers with no carbon abatement at all. At the point when we should be scrapping gas boilers in the next decade, we would be extending our dependency on a gas grid and gas fuel with blue hydrogen as the enabler. Of course, the argument will come back that this is a transition and in the future we can switch from blue to green hydrogen, which is made from renewable energy. I get that, but green hydrogen is going to be a precious and highly sought after commodity. It's going to be used to fuel the steel furnaces of Europe and Scotland, I hope, will have a serious role in that, but it would be an expensive, low-grade use of that just to use it to heat our homes. I think that there are critical questions to be answered about the effectiveness of CCS. A recent report by the Tyndall Centre showed that the scale of deployment necessary to reduce emissions in line with our climate targets has not been demonstrated anywhere in the world yet, with projects receiving billions in public investment around the world, but with pretty minimal success. In fact, right now, CCS capacity globally is at 0.1 per cent of annual global emissions per year. Not only are these technologies currently under-delivering, but that capacity is not intended to significantly increase until 2030, with deployment taking six to 10 years from construction to completion, by which point our emissions targets will have already been missed. There are critical questions that we need to ask of Government, which need to be answered. What guarantees will there be of the capture rate for those plants that are feeding into the ACORM project? What about the huge energy requirements to actually power CCS, which risks causing more emissions than it will actually capture? Presiding officer, it's been a couple of weeks since COP, yes, the eyes of the world are on Scotland, and meaningful change was demanded by the world, but we really need to have a critical eye, particularly when there are strategies and solutions that are coming from the boardrooms of all-in-gas corporations who, to be honest, have spent decades denying the even existence of climate change. Let's have a bit more critical thinking here about the deployment of these technologies. Thank you, Mr Ruskell, and I call on Liam Kerr to be followed by Audrey Nicholl for minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thought it would be helpful to just clear up some of the areas where some speakers seem to have misunderstood some crucial facts. Karen Adam said that it was a political decision, yet she appears unaware that there were objective criteria for approval, which all bidders knew and pitched to. Paul Sweeney said that the ACORM project had the most comprehensive business plan. Given that it's unlikely that he can have seen and compared all of the scoring, that might be somewhat difficult to substantiate. In any event, he appears to be unaware that only one of the criteria pertain to how far along a project might be. Gillian Martin, among what were otherwise very fair and measured comments, suggested that the UK Government might have betrayed the north-east. Yet, as I intervened on her, the UK Government has backed the Scottish cluster with £31 million already. If Karen Adam really had been listening to the people that she purports to have met, she would know that the UK Government continues to work with the partners, leading SSE to report that we are engaging with the UK Government and our Scottish cluster partners. The UK Government, far from kicking it into the long grass, has told the ACORM partners to keep working towards going live and has continued regular meetings between Sturrega executives and ministers and bays and the treasury to move the project on. I have to remark that the SNP's constant griping and politicking really is not helpful. Their position today is rather undermined, given that they are in coalition with a party whose manifesto explicitly rejects the idea of CCUS. If it was up to certain Government ministers, we would have no carbon capture projects at all. I had heard no public protest, not one from any of those SNP members when the tawdry deal was being stitched up. I have heard no public dissent from north-east SNP members as Sturgeon performed a handbrake turn on Cambo and signalled her willingness to throw the north-east oil and gas industry over a cliff. That is betrayal, Presiding Officer. I am very grateful for the intervention. We will listen to what the minister responds to that later, but to the best of my knowledge, the Scottish Government has put in zero pounds. The important part about the investment is that it is all part of a bigger picture. Acorn, like the oil and gas industry, needs investment, especially external foreign private investment. I think that the minister might do well to actually listen to my comments here. That requires stability, collaborative working and integrity, not manufactured grievance and division in both Parliament and the media. Karen Adam mentioned the SNP's much trumpeted 500 million just transition fund. I have submitted around 10 parliamentary questions to the minister. The fund is a sound bite. There are no details about when, where, to whom, from whom or for what it will be paid. We do not even know which budget it is coming from and the contrast with the UK Government's £16 billion North Sea transition deal. That is 32 times larger than the SNP's sound bite, which is planned to deliver 40,000 new energy jobs could not be more stark. Then there is the energy white paper, the 10-point plan, previous and on-going investment in offshore wind, carbon capture and, as I announced yesterday, £20 million for tidal energy. That has been shown to attract around £15 billion of private investment, satisfying Mark Ruskell's intervention on Gillian Martin earlier. Presiding Officer, that is what Kwazi Kwartang meant when he said that the UK delivers plans, not platitudes. It is time for the SNP to do the same. I say to the SNP, enough of the grievance, the division and the misinformation. Let's work together with the UK Government, the partners and the industry to make Acorn happen. Thank you, Mr Kerr. I now call on Audrey Nicholl, who will be followed by Alex Rowley. I thank Gillian Martin for bringing this important debate forward today. My constituency of Aberdeen South and North Concardin has oil and gas running through its veins, so I am invested in Scotland's journey to net zero and two opportunities that carbon capture and storage will bring to my constituents. Our global population continues to grow, so does energy demand, so do carbon dioxide concentrations and so do global temperatures. There are differing schools of thought on how we get to net zero, one being a suite of technologies that include the capture and storage of carbon dioxide emissions produced through power generation and other industrial processes. Carbon capture and storage is not a new technology. One of my constituents recently reminded me that CCS has been used in enhanced oil recovery since at least the 1970s, using captured carbon to re-inject and boost reservoir pressures. For some time now, carbon capture and storage has been the subject of on-going focus, as a vehicle by which skills from the oil and gas sector can become a force of good in supporting Scotland to meet its climate change obligations. I thank the member for taking an intervention. I was really just wanting to ask, does she agree with the First Minister when the First Minister said that there should be no new oil and gas development? My interpretation of what she said is that until the appropriate climate compatibility assessments are undertaken, given that the original licensing was many years ago, then, until that point, there should be no new progress on that. That is my interpretation. According to the UK Offshore Energy Workforce Transferability Review that the Robert Gordon University published, 90 per cent of oil and gas industry jobs have medium to high transferability into net zero industries, not only by virtue of the industry's experience in implementing and operating large offshore infrastructure projects, but also through its extensive knowledge of subsurface technologies, reservoir management and transport and storage of substances. In terms of capacity, the oil and gas UK's energy transition outlook report outlines a total capacity to hold 78 billion tonnes of CO2 under the north and Irish seas, about 190 times greater than the UK's annual emissions of 400 million tonnes. Of course, there are challenges, too. Friends of the Earth have expressed concerns about the positioning of carbon capture and storage as a climate solution, linking education providers, training organisations and the private sector more effectively. In his research on North Sea carbon capture, Dr Ash Bec Agawal of the Robert Gordon University highlights challenges including carbon pricing and infrastructure and industry leadership of CCS rather than government. However, he also concludes that CCS is both desirable and feasible going forward. In that regard, the Scottish cluster that we have already heard a great deal about is working to unlock access to one of the UK's most important CO2 storage resources through repurposing existing oil and gas infrastructure. It is therefore hugely disappointing that, despite the potential for the Scottish cluster to support an average of 15,000 jobs per year to 2050 and £1.4 billion a year in gross value added, it was selected as a reserve cluster by the UK Government, compromising our ability to take crucial action now to reduce emissions, not just in Scotland but across the UK. The Scottish Government has committed some £500 million to a new just transition fund for the north-eastern Murray over the next 10 years and is calling on the UK Government to match that investment. She is just concluding, Mr Kerr. Like many members here today, I will continue to urge the UK Government to match this funding commitment and I urge the Scottish Government to continue to reflect its commitment to net zero by using all its powers to support carbon capture and storage opportunities within our wider just transition. I saw the motion raised by Gillian Martin on carbon capture utilisation and storage. I had no hesitation in supporting that. I support the view that carbon capture is a crucial tool and can be used as part of the broader solution that is needed to reach net zero in Scotland. We cannot, as a country, kid ourselves that all carbon emissions will be stopped altogether nor can we pretend that reaching net zero will be a simple process. We still require large-scale energy intensive processes, whether they can be cement production, chemical processing, hydrogen production or, indeed, power generation. On top of that, we have to consider the carbon produced by agriculture and by transport. Obviously, in order to reach net zero, we will have to massively reduce the amount of carbon that enters that atmosphere. I support measures to see this happen but we also have other means that are disposable to reach net zero targets. Carbon capture is just one of them. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fifth assessment report states that globally it would cost 138 per cent more to restrict our eyes in global temperatures to no more than two degrees Celsius without carbon capture and storage. That shows that, while not producing carbon in the first place may be more ideal, using carbon capture can help balance the environmental impact and the economic concerns as we move to reaching net zero. The technology has come a long way. Now, carbon capture use and storage technologies can capture more than 90 per cent of CO2 emissions from power plants and industrial facilities. Scotland has so much potential to play a major role in the advancement of that technology and we cannot fall behind the rest of the world as projects elsewhere expand. Just two days ago, Singapore announced targets to capture at least two million tonnes of carbon. We have the potential to be at the forefront of demonstrating the benefits of that technology, especially given that there are just 27 operation and commercial carbon capture and storage facilities globally. That is why, when I saw the news that the UK Government was not supporting the decision to invest in carbon capture at this stage in Scotland, I, like many others in the chamber, was dismayed. It is a bizarre assertion that the UK Government clearly is supporting it, but decided that on objective criteria. Does the member not acknowledge that? Alex Rowley. I think that people were astounded given the progress that has been made. I think that you just really need to be honest, accept that, stand up for Scotland and make the case as the rest of us are trying to do. I am happy to support the Scottish Government in its calls on the UK Government to reverse this decision and invest in the Scottish cluster as a national priority. Had this been done for the first time around 2014 when the UK Government also did not invest, we would be well on our way to making carbon capture more fully established in Scotland and, in turn, the UK would be further on its way to meeting its own climate targets. Given that we have just had COP26 right here in Scotland, it is good that the discussion around this is back to the forefront, but, at the same time, we also have to recognise that carbon capture is only one tool at our disposal. At the same time, there is no question that we have to reduce carbon production, and that means pursuing greener energy, greener production methods and greener processing. In conclusion, we also need to expand woodland, restore peatlands, both of which play a major role in storing carbon and have a clear long-term future. There is much that we can and should do, and I hope that the UK Government will recognise Scotland as an integral role in the way. We call on Dean Lockhart, who will be followed by Neil Gray. Let me start on a note of consensus. The Scottish Conservatives position has always been that carbon storage will play a vital role in the transition to net zero. That is all the more important after agreement was reached at the Glasgow climate pact on article 6 of the final outcome in relation to international carbon market, making carbon storage all the more important going forward. One of the other fundamental takeaways from the Glasgow COP was the absolute necessity for Governments to work together and for constructive engagement between parliaments, politicians, the public sector and the private sector, and that is where I have to take issue with the SNP's approach to this debate. To suggest that the UK Government has utterly betrayed the north-east is not just factually wrong, it is counterproductive to our collective efforts to transition to net zero, and it is playing politics, frankly, with the climate crisis and the future prospects of the Scottish cluster. The UK Government's support for the north-east and the renewable sector in Scotland speaks for itself. I have only got four minutes. I am very happy if the Scottish Government wants to bring a full debate on this, I am very happy to give way in that debate. The UK Government brought forward the North Sea transition deal, investing up to £16 billion in the sector and the region, supporting over 40,000 jobs. Just this week, the White League Green hydrogen storage project was announced the first of its kind in the UK. Again this week, the UK Government announced £20 million a year for the development of tidal stream electricity, more support for the sector in Scotland. All of this is on top of the 75,000 jobs and the 10,000 businesses across the north-east that the UK Government has saved during the pandemic, helping the north-east economy to keep going in the face of the global pandemic. When it comes to the Scottish cluster, as my colleagues have highlighted, the UK Government has already invested significantly and continues to support the cluster. It made clear that the cluster will be central for the future of carbon storage in the UK. £31 million has already been invested in the project, and we will hear from the minister shortly whether that is £31 million more than the Scottish Government has invested in the cluster. The cluster is now first reserved and on track for further investment. All of this has been underpinned just last month by the UK Government announcing the most ambitious £10 billion low-carbon hydrogen energy plan in the world, which will secure the future of carbon storage across the UK and in the north-east. It has to be said that this massive investment by the UK Government stands in stark contrast with the track record of the Scottish Government in the renewable sector, a Government that promised to deliver 130,000 jobs in the sector only for 20,000 jobs to be delivered, a Government that lost tens of millions of pounds of taxpayer money on the Palamas and Aquamarine wave power projects and a Government that has put at risk £600 million of Scottish taxpayers' money to prop up the Gupta GFG Alliance, all for the sake of creating just 44 jobs. When it comes, as my colleagues have said, to the much-vaunted £500 million just transition fund, many in the sector fear that this is just a headline announcement and will go the same way as the mythical publicly-owned energy company all spin, but something that will never see the light of day. I think that the ultimate irony is the concern expressed by SNP members about saving jobs in the north-east just a week after Nicola Sturgeon announced opposition to the development of the Cambo oil field, effectively confirming that the SNP-Green coalition wants to close down the oil and gas sector in the north-east, with the loss of 100,000 jobs, losing the massive technical expertise of workers and businesses across the sector, and requiring Scotland to import oil and gas in the future. Someone said soundbites, but that is precisely what your colleague Farnish Ewing highlighted that would happen if the Cambo development did not go forward. My concluding message, Presiding Officer, is that let's stop playing politics with the climate crisis. Let's see the Scottish Government work together with the UK Government to transition Scotland to net zero. Thank you, Mr Lockhart. Neil Graf will be followed by Stephen Kerr again in four minutes. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I'd like to congratulate Gillian Martin for securing this debate and commender for once again standing up for her constituents and for the wider north-east, a doughty campaigner for them, and that has shown through in her contribution today. I also want to support the case made by Gillian Martin on the need to support carbon capture and storage in the north-east, in addition to the projects already in receipt of track 1 support, and then move on briefly to our wider net zero ambitions. As we have heard today already, the Scottish Cluster's ACON project was the most advanced project that was submitted to the UK Government. That is not my assessment or that of the Scottish Government. The UK Government scored St Fergus as being the most liberal carbon capture project anywhere in the UK. The infrastructure is already there, the workforce is there already, everything is place in place, so it is crazy that the Scottish cluster has been left behind. While it is not the end of CCS in the north-east, it certainly makes it much harder. It puts jobs at risk, up to 20,000 to be exact, and also the decarbonisation of Grangemouth, Scotland's largest industrial emitter. However, to add insult to injury, the reserve status that ACON has apparently achieved gives no guarantee of future support and still cuts the cluster out of any further future potential treasury funding streams lending of last resort or gaining storage liability, meaning that the Scottish cluster is now at a very clear disadvantage. That is bad news for the north-east and our net zero ambitions, and the Tories know it. That is not the first time that we have been let down for short-sighted UK Government decisions. As Fergus Ewing said, we remember Lungannot and the £1 billion funding that was promised for CCS in Peterhead in the run-up to the 2014 referendum. Only for David Cameron to renaig on that promise the following year, once that one area of constitutional difficulty was out of the way. I am really sorry, but given the strictures that are already imposed by the Presiding Officer in terms of time, I am conscious of that. The UK Government must urgently review the decision on the Scottish cluster and provide the necessary support to the ACON project as quickly as possible. It must also review its decision on the support that is being provided in other areas for us to meet our net zero targets. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced £20 million to support marine tidal technology, which, on the face of it, sounds great. However, in reality, the UK Government is about to miss another good opportunity. The UK and Scotland, in particular, is already home to the potentially game-changing technology for the energy sector. The tidal industry has the potential to generate £1.4 billion to the UK economy and support 4,000 jobs, just as importantly for our net zero objectives. Tidal stream technology is predicted to provide 11 per cent of the UK's, not just Scotland's, but the UK's electric system. Sorry, Mr Gray. Enough chantering. Mr Kerr, you will have an opportunity in a second to actually make a speech of your own. Please continue, Mr Gray. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The support offered by the UK Government is less than a third of what is required by the industry. Just as with carbon capture, the tidal stream industry has been let down when we need to be doing all that we can to encourage its swift expansion. In the meantime, as it is £50 million short for the tidal industry that is based here, the UK Government is committing billions to new nuclear power stations. If they do not invest now, we will lose this investment, lose the technology and lose the jobs. Alan Brown, Stephen Flynn and Ian Blackford continue to make the case for both CCS and tidal stream at Westminster. I hope that the Scottish Tories could join them in standing up for crucial Scottish industries and making the case for them both to the UK Government. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Gray. I now call on the final speaker of the open debate, Mr Kerr, for four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me congratulate Gillian Martin for bringing that motion to the chamber. She gave an excellent speech, except for about the last few words of the final paragraph. I also want to thank Fergus Ewing, who gave an excellent speech, again except for a few choice words mixed in along the way. In all honesty and including Neil Gray's comments about the tidal stream sector—which, by the way, are so misguided, it's almost unbelievable—I disagree completely with the motivation behind today's debate, as it has become apparent from the contributions from certain members of the SNP. The conversation about the UK Government's support for CCUS clusters should focus on environmental benefits that they will provide. Sadly, the motivation for today's debate comes directly, I'm afraid, from the SNP's one-page playbook stalking up grievance against the UK Government. I wish I could. I have no idea how much I'd love to give way to the member, but unfortunately I'm not allowed to. You're perfectly able to take an intervention, Mr Kerr. I'm telling you that you will still be restricted to the four minutes. Exactly. It's all about stalking. This is the one-page playbook of the SNP, stalking up grievance against the UK Government. This narrative has always been false. Rather than of the SNP's inward-looking approach, our efforts to protect the climate must be about co-operation. We must work together with our partners across the UK and countries around the world. COP26, hosted by the UK Government in Glasgow earlier this month, showed the challenges and frustrations that co-operation can involve, but it also showed that, through hard work, patience and determination and co-operation, things get done and will get done. It produces positive outcomes that put us on the path to protecting our planet. It is with the same spirit of co-operation and determination to do what is best for our planet that I certainly approach this debate and this motion. As part of the UK Government's net zero strategy, four CCUS clusters will be operational in the UK by 2030. It is world-leading, amazing but not entirely surprised to hear the Greens discussing the need for us all to be so conservative about those things and not make any strides forward because no-one's ever done it before. The attitude that was portrayed by Mark Ruskell, I'm afraid, is exactly why the Greens are on the fringes of political debate in this area. Two of those clusters will be operational by the mid-2020s and the other two by 2030. Last month, the UK Government's energy minister, Greg Hans, announced that the first two clusters will indeed be the east coast cluster and high net, but the ACON project in Aberdeenshire has been designated as a reserve site in the first phase and will continue to receive UK Government support. Being designated as a reserve site also leaves the ACON in a promising, I would say, advantaged position to be selected for full support in the second phase. Determining which clusters would be selected was always going to be a competitive process based on objective criteria. Paul Swinney has certainly not seen the scoring, by the way. Although it is disappointing that the ACON project will not receive the full support that we all wanted in the first phase, it is fundamentally misleading and self-defeating for the SNP to say that the UK Government has abandoned Scotland. All that language about betrayal and the stuff in that letter that was sent us was outrageous. The important thing here is meeting the carbon goals that we all agree on, not necessarily what part of the country the projects appear in, in what order. When carbon is captured and stored, we all benefit. Whether we are in Scotland, England or indeed in any other part of the world, to reduce carbon reduction targets to tit for tat port barrel politics is to betray the science that sits behind it. We must act locally and think globally. I can sense that you are about to tell me that I have no more time. Let me conclude by simply saying that it is my hope that in the second phase—and we will work across this chamber to this end—that the ACON project will be part of the next phase and will get full support. The technology deputy also deserves our support. It can be a major contribution to our carbon reduction targets, and it deserves more than SNP, Stevens and Spent. I apologise to the later speakers in the debate that I have curtailed their time a little. It has been a debate that was heavily oversubscribed. I will, however, protect a bit of time for the minister in responding to the debate to take interventions if he wishes. I call on Richard Lochhead to respond to the debate for around seven minutes. I thank Gillian Martin for lodging this motion on carbon capture utilisation and storage, highlighting a technology that will play a crucial role in helping Scotland to decarbonise and reach our world-leading statutory emissions targets by 2045. She is rightly and eloquently highlighted the consequences of the recent UK Government failure to award the Scottish cluster, led by the ACON project in Aberdeenshire, track one status and funding in the recent cluster sequencing process. The cluster was previously considered the most advanced and deliverable CCS project in the UK, yet was rejected by the UK Government, and the Sir Ian Wood said that it is like leaving your best player on the subs bench. It is fair to say that the public, industry and Scottish ministers and many others were shell shocked by the decision, and I honestly hoped that today we could all stand together and say that this is a serious mistake that must be corrected without delay. Gillian Martin has drawn attention to the north-east of Scotland, the home of oil and gas and a natural home for CCS development and deployment. The UK's decision risks a just transition to good green jobs that that region urgently needs and that members across all the parties keep calling on the Scottish Government to support. The Scottish Government supports CCS as a means to decarbonise industry and is a vital tool to achieve Scotland's emission targets. Liam Kerr. I am very grateful. Just to take him back to the north-east industry, Fergus Ewing rightly pointed out that when Acorn is up and running, it will need a supply of oil and gas. Does the minister support Nicholas Sturgeon's view of future oil and gas or Alex Salmond's position on future oil and gas? I am actually just about to come to that theme, and Alex Rowley mentioned the importance of COP. I spent two weeks of my life at COP. I saw ministers from the UK Government, Scottish Governments, tens of thousands of people from across the world and NGOs saying together that the planet is burning, that we have to take faster action, we have to be braver and we have to be bolder. Yet the Conservatives and Liam Kerr, the zero net zero spokesperson for the Conservatives, in this debate have been attacking the SNP Government for saying that we should transition away from fossil fuels in Scotland and play our role to save the planet. Our 2045 net zero target is based in part on advice from the UK Climate Change Committee, which describes CCUS as a necessity, not that option, as Gillian Martin said, and who pointed to Scotland's CO2 storage potential in recommending that date of 2045. I was heartened to hear that the SNP is going to finally meet the targets, specifically the 2013 household waste recycling target of 50 per cent. Will the minister confirm that that will be met next year? The minister gave a statement to the Parliament just last week in the circular economy. I hope that I can say that, in response to the many attacks on the Conservative benches on Scotland's climate change record, we have reduced more emissions as a percentage than the rest of the UK. However, we do not hear one word of credit from those benches in terms of Scotland's progress towards our climate change targets. However, CCUS is a very important transition opportunity for Scotland's mature oil and gas industry, utilising the existing skills and expertise of those across Scotland to transition to a low-carbon economy, as many members have said. The livelihoods of significant numbers of oil and gas workers in Scotland are at stake. Recent figures show that the oil and gas sector currently supports around 70,000 jobs in Scotland. With the Scottish cluster, which we are debating today, could support an average, as we heard, of 15,100 jobs from 2022 onwards. With regard to the future operations of the North Sea oil and gas operators, does the minister welcome the opportunity that exists now to build a consensus across almost all parties that the forth-climbing climate compatibility checkpoint, which I understand that the UK Government, having consulted on that since last September, is bringing forward, offers an opportunity to demonstrate that future production can continue provided it meets the high standards, which I hope will be the outcome of that particular consultation and will enable the 71,000 jobs to continue for the foreseeable future? The Scottish Government has asked the UK Government, on several occasions, to be involved and to be included in the conversations about the compatibility test for future oil and gas fields in the North Sea. Anyone following COP would think that it is a very sensible position to take that the green light should not be given to any fields until we have seen that compatibility test applied. However, if I can just return to the jobs, it is crucially important for the debate that there are 70,000 jobs in oil and gas at the moment, with the Scottish cluster and the ACORN project likely to create 15,000 jobs from 2022 onwards. That is just next year onwards. To put that in context, the number of green jobs put at risk by failing to support this one project of many that is happening represents over 20 per cent of existing jobs in the oil and gas industry. The UK Government's decision means that some of those employment opportunities will be delayed or even lost. The UK Government's failure to support the Scottish cluster is a blow to Scotland's next-year ambitions into people of Scotland and particularly communities in the north-east of Scotland who are so dependent on that energy transition. We have announced £500 million of just transition funds for the north-east and we have asked the UK Government to help by matching that as well. We are also supporting those in carbon intensive industries with a skills guarantee and take the final intervention. I am very grateful just on that point. Does the minister agree with the former SNP golden boy, Fergus Mutch, in the P&J just today when he says that that just transition fund is a drop in the ocean? That is why we want the UK Government to match it, so I am glad that he agrees with the point, and hopefully he will make representations for the UK Government. In terms of the transition, the ACORN project is at the heart of the transition that everyone is calling for to be supported. Scotland has vast potential for co2 storage in the North Sea, and it remains the best-placed nation in Europe to deploy it. The Scottish cluster projects clearly present the best opportunity to develop industrial emissions reductions at scale by the mid-2020s. When asked about the UK Government's decision, the climate change committee CEO Chris Stark stated that the cluster seems to slam dunk for support again, as Gillian Martin said, and then noted that we should be able to get a third project going, and that the Scottish project would be a really good candidate for that. That announcement from the UK Government is a substantial step forward that lays out clear the Government's ambitions to cut emissions across the economy for the coming 15 years and beyond, factoring in the fact that there is going to be further announcements. What he said was that it was a slam dunk for support, but, of course, it did not get that support in the announcement of the UK Government. That is today—hopefully—we can all rally round and make sure that we get the Scottish project included in track 1 as soon as possible, because ACORN is expected to store over 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2030. That is roughly 10 per cent of Scotland's current emissions, and it also plans to take that up to 20 million tonnes by 2040. I better reach a conclusion, but the decision by the UK Government not to award the Scottish cluster track 1 status is illogical. It shows a clear lack of ambition. It is a huge missed opportunity for green jobs in Scotland, particularly in the north-east of Scotland, and it is a lack of leadership on climate change. Again, as Sir Ian Wood said, he described it as a decision that makes little economic or environmental sense and is a real blow to Scotland. I urge all the parties to heed Gillian Martin's advice, to all stand together, to make the case that this project is absolutely essential for Scotland to meet its net zero ambitions, to deliver green jobs as part of the energy transition in particular in the north-east of Scotland, and therefore we need the mistake that was the rejection of the ACORN project to be corrected as an absolute priority so that we can get this off the ground, get going and get the transition under way and help Scotland meet our net zero targets. Minister, that concludes the debate and I suspend this meeting briefly until 2.30 this afternoon.