Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will hand over to Phil Raines in a moment.

For my part, I see the TIMES model as a well-regarded and exceptionally rigorous tool, which is critical to our ability to plan sector envelopes for emissions reduction. Equally, it is a model and we have to apply human judgment to much of what it throws up as being the pathway to net zero of least cost. That is the job that the civil servants and I will do: we will apply judgment to what TIMES tells us. We will be as explanatory and transparent as we can be.

One of the great benefits of this strand of work is that we have a tangible measurement for emissions reduction so that we can set out in great detail the emissions reduction policy. That is quite different to something like biodiversity gain. Where we have such tangible measurement, I am keen that it is as clear as possible what each policy accrues to. I will hand over to Phil Raines, whose days are probably very much filled with this just now.

Future approaches to the distribution of the £500 million fund are subject to future budgetary choices. There is no saying that we will not return to the way that it was before and there is no saying that the next funds will be distributed by the Scottish National Investment Bank. That is the way that we have chosen to distribute the first and the second pots, and I will make my decision about the third suite of funding when I get to it.

I am really sorry, Mr Kerr, but I missed the start of your question.

It does not change the geography, and I do not expect that it will change the thresholds, but I will check that latter point and come back to you.

We are working on the final details of what we are going to consult on and we are moving to start that process as soon as we can. However, we are in quite a delicate period of development so I do not want to pre-empt it exactly. It is a major part of our draft climate change plan, which will be laid in November. I hope that that gives you an idea of timescales.

That is a good point. We always have to assess the progress that we are making as well as look forward to the next targets.

Only last week, I made a statement to the Parliament on the 2021 target, which we missed by 1.2 percentage points. That told me two things. First, that, in 2021, we were tracking quite closely where our world-leading targets dictate that we need to be—we were 1.2 percentage points behind where we needed to be for that year. That is positive, albeit that I would have loved to have met the target. The other thing that that tells me is that there is much work still to be done. In all candour, that is increasingly the case as we move towards the 2030 target.

I was not in Parliament when the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 was passed, but members who were will remember that the UK Committee on Climate Change, as it was called at the time, was clear that it did not recommend the 75 per cent 2030 target. I think that it was changed at stage 3 with cross-party consensus. My view is that it is exceptionally challenging to achieve that target, but we have to do everything that we can and that, by aiming high, we will get close to where we need to be in the shorter term. I am confident of the long-term progress for the mid-century—2045—point.

That is indeed very challenging. It goes back to a point that I was trying to make previously: that no stone can be left unturned. If, for whatever reason, a significant stone such as carbon capture, use and storage cannot be overturned by the Scottish Government and we require intervention from the UK Government, that makes things very difficult, because there is not really scope across other sectors of the economy to compensate for that.

In my role, I can continue working with UK Government colleagues, including through the net zero interministerial group, to impress on them the ample scope that we have in Scotland for CCUS and the necessity of bringing that on track as soon as possible because it is mission-critical for the decarbonisation of industry. The CCC has made it very clear that this is not something that is nice to have but is essential, and I share that view.

I will continue pushing on CCUS. There has been some positive movement of late, but I need a timescale for when track two will be complete, particularly because of my work on the climate change plan.

We have also been trying to take forward other work. We have set up a working group to look at bioenergy and CCUS and are trying to progress that as far as possible. If the question is whether we can compensate elsewhere for work that is not done, the answer is that that is very difficult to do.

I am trying to retrieve from my mind the most recent update on that. We have appointed Professor Lorne Crerar, who is a well-respected lawyer, to advise on the board’s remit and its setting up and so on, and I hope to receive an update on that shortly.

Thank you very much.

Absolutely. It will be published in advance of the draft climate change plan, which will be laid in November.