The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-16657, in the name of Gillian Martin, on Scotland’s renewable future. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
15:09
I am pleased to be opening today’s debate on rejection of new nuclear power plants in Scotland and the Scottish Government’s commitment to renewable energy. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out to the Parliament the Scottish Government’s continued opposition to new nuclear, while illustrating the exceptional opportunity that clean renewable energy presents for Scotland’s economy and energy security.
At the outset, I take the opportunity to reiterate the Scottish Government’s position that we do not support the building of any new nuclear power stations in Scotland. Instead, our focus must be on accelerating the deployment of renewables technologies. To put it simply, renewables are safer, cheaper, faster to deploy and better for jobs than nuclear. Nuclear generation has gone on in Scotland for some time, but for the future we have better sustainable energy options due to advances in renewables technology.
The people who have staffed nuclear fission stations in Scotland—and those who continue to do so at Torness—have played a vital role in keeping Scotland’s lights on, and I thank them for that. The contribution of nuclear to electricity generation in Scotland is decreasing, however, and will continue to do so.
Generation of electricity from nuclear fission presents a number of challenges—not the least of which is that nuclear generation creates a legacy of radioactive waste that will have to be managed for thousands of years, and requires complex and robust management to ensure the protection of people and the environment. Cleaning up Scotland’s existing nuclear sites safely and securely is extremely expensive and will take many decades.
Is it also now the case that the SNP Scottish Government would not consider any new fission technologies?
Our position is clear. Given the current technologies, that is our position. We cannot say what will happen in the future and we cannot say what would happen with regard to the waste that is associated with nuclear power generation. It is that particular issue, as well as the cost of it, that causes our opposition. I want to make it clear to Martin Whitfield that we are looking at the matter in the context of the technologies that exist just now.
Although she supports development of our renewable resources, does the cabinet secretary agree that, in order to have a functioning electricity system, every country needs a variety of sources of generation? Indeed, it was Sir Winston Churchill who said that, when it comes to electricity supply, the solution is “variety and variety alone”.
I cannot disagree with any of that. In particular, I feel that hydro power has been a very overlooked generator in the past. Neighbouring countries—in particular, Norway—have placed a great deal of importance on hydro power and are very energy secure in a way that other countries are not. However, that does not mean that there should be wholesale acceptance of all the technologies that are out there. I am setting out the Scottish Government’s vision in relation to new nuclear.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I will, and will then continue with my speech.
I would like to see much more emphasis on hydrogen power generation, as the cabinet secretary well knows. Scotland has a great boon when it comes to hydrogen power from renewables. Does she see hydrogen as being a major way forward in terms of base-load?
I can give you the time back for the intervention, cabinet secretary.
I think that hydrogen is going to have many uses—not least in decarbonisation of transport and heavy goods vehicles, and in industrial decarbonisation. Kevin Stewart is right to point to it. It can potentially even be an energy source for domestic use. He will be familiar with the H100 Fife programme, which the First Minister officially opened and which is trialling use of hydrogen in domestic settings.
Will the cabinet secretary give way on that point?
This will be the last intervention that I take.
Has the minister seen the United Kingdom Climate Change Committee’s report “The Seventh Carbon Budget”, which was published a week or 10 days ago? It concludes very clearly that, although hydrogen will have many other uses in the energy system, it will have no role in domestic heating.
I have seen the report, but I have heard from quite a few different sources on the matter—not least, from Southern Gas Networks, or SGN, which believes that a combination that includes hydrogen in the gas grid could be used to decarbonise the existing gas infrastructure. I do not think that we should rule anything out. We do not know what will happen in the future, with regard to technologies.
I will continue with my speech, if that is okay. I mentioned the creation of a dangerous and long-lasting radioactive waste legacy, but we cannot discuss nuclear power without also referring to its capacity to cause catastrophic damage through accidents and malfunctions. We have been lucky that that has not happened in Scotland, but nuclear has a tainted safety history, with terrible incidents having occurred at Chernobyl and, more recently, at Fukushima in Japan. In developing new clean energy systems for the future, we have a moral imperative to ensure that they do not have the ability to threaten the existence of any population or the environment that we depend on.
As long as there are serious environmental concerns, the Scottish Government is wholly unconvinced by the economic argument for the development of new nuclear. The construction of new nuclear power stations is hugely expensive and would inevitably lead to a further increase in consumer energy bills. For example, when Hinkley Point C was given the green light by the UK Government, it was due to be completed by 2025 at a cost of £18 billion; however, last month, EDF Energy estimated that the project might not be completed until 2031, at a cost of up to £46 billion—more than two and a half times the original cost estimate.
Neither is the news better for electricity consumers: even the UK Government’s own estimates show that the cost for new nuclear power is £109 per megawatt hour, compared with £38 and £44 per megawatt hour for onshore wind and offshore wind respectively. New nuclear generation will increase bills.
As we transition to a clean energy system, we must ensure that, as well as being clean, energy should enhance economic growth and be secure and affordable. That is why we have been clear that the UK Government’s intended investment in nuclear energy—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I have taken too many interventions as it is.
Scotland already has an enviable track record in renewable generation, including onshore and offshore wind, solar and tidal. I echo what the First Minister said in his speech on climate action at Glasgow Botanic Gardens, last month:
“Scotland’s greatest contribution to the global climate challenge is our renewable energy potential, our technical expertise and our capacity for innovation.”
Scotland proudly leads the way across the UK in onshore wind deployment. As of 24 September, we had approximately 10.2GW of operational onshore wind capacity in Scotland, and we are working hard to ensure that new developments maximise value for communities through the onshore wind sector deal, which includes commitments for actions by both the Government and industry that will secure benefits for Scotland’s economy, communities and natural environment.
To complement our work on deployment of onshore wind, we are pressing forward with our ambitious offshore wind targets, which will ensure that Scotland is fuel secure well into the future, and will provide good-quality jobs in energy for the long term. We have an estimated pipeline of more than 40GW of Scottish offshore wind capacity, on top of the 3GW that are already operational. Those projects are crucial to supporting our commitment to a just transition and will continue to affirm Scotland’s position as a world leader in the energy sector.
Although the deployment of renewable generation is important, its intermittent nature means that development of storage capacity is essential for ensuring the security and flexibility of our energy system. Scotland has a significant pipeline of pumped storage hydro projects, equating to 6.9GW of storage capacity, which offers a significant investment potential that will bring huge economic benefits to Scotland. In my answer to Fergus Ewing, I mentioned what other countries have done in that regard.
The energy transition is an era-defining economic opportunity for Scotland, with the potential to provide tens of thousands of good-quality sustainable green jobs across the country. We are leading the UK in delivering a green jobs revolution and unlocking the tremendous potential that is held by that transition and the wider net zero journey.
In addition, the manufacturing supply chain and support activities that are associated with renewables are set to give a future to old industrial sites, including the high-voltage direct current cable manufacturing plant that is planned for Hunterston; Ardersier, which is thriving under new management; and the Sumitomo Electric investment in Nigg. The £800 million Coalburn battery storage project in South Lanarkshire further highlights the scale of the opportunity to give disused industrial sites a new lease of life.
We are striving towards a clean energy system and growing our national economy. I feel strongly that we must do so in a way that supports the communities that host the infrastructure. Despite much of that being reserved to the UK Government, we are taking action to make sure that communities gain tangible benefits from Scotland’s clean power revolution.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I have only about a minute left, so I will finish my points.
In the past 12 months, benefits worth more than £30 million have been offered to Scottish communities. However, our principles of good practice must be improved, and the amount of money that comes to communities must be ramped up. As I said, the powers to mandate community benefits and shared ownership are reserved. However, we are taking practical action to maximise those opportunities in Scotland, including through our on-going consultation on improving the good practice principles for onshore and offshore renewable energy developments, in order to ensure that our national guidance is updated and fit for the future. I encourage communities, businesses and everyone with an interest in our energy system to take part and ensure that our guidance supports sustainable and meaningful outcomes.
We are also working hard to improve Scottish Government guidance on pre-application processes in order to ensure that communities are heard by developers ahead of planning applications being submitted. A review of that guidance will be published in the coming weeks.
Will the minister give way?
I am coming to a close.
In bringing my speech to a close, I want to reflect on the decision that is before us, which is whether to spend huge sums of money on nuclear, which will not reduce consumer bills and will leave us with an environmental hazard extending thousands of years into the future, or to continue to invest in renewables and Scotland’s future.
There is a unique opportunity at stake. We have an opportunity to reach our climate goals, provide cost-competitive energy security and grow our economy through the deployment of renewables and associated infrastructure. I repeat: renewable energy is safer, cheaper and faster to deploy, and creates more jobs than nuclear generation.
Therefore, I ask Parliament to reject the creation of new nuclear power plants in Scotland and the risks that they bring, and to agree that Scotland’s future is as a renewables powerhouse that benefits the people of Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament rejects the creation of new nuclear power plants in Scotland and the risk that they bring; believes that Scotland’s future is as a renewables powerhouse; further believes that the expansion of renewables should have a positive impact on household energy bills; notes the challenges and dangers of producing and managing hazardous radioactive nuclear waste products, and the potentially catastrophic consequences of the failure of a nuclear power plant; recognises that the development and operation of renewable power generation is faster, cheaper and safer than that of nuclear power, and welcomes that renewables would deliver higher employment than nuclear power for the development and production of equivalent levels of generated power.
I remind members who have not yet pressed their request-to-speak buttons but who intend to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
I call Douglas Lumsden to speak to and to move amendment S6M-16657.3.
15:21
I have been in Parliament for four years now, and I feel that, today, I am speaking on the most important topic. Up and down the country, people have real concerns about what they see happening to their communities and their homes. Many of them contacted me over the weekend, asking me to speak up for them, because they are feeling ignored. I have promised to speak for June, Andy, Vince, Shona, Caroline, Aileen, Kate, Laura, Angela and all the others who have contacted me, and all the concerned residents I have met over the past six months—from Turriff, New Deer and Leylodge to Angus and Save Our Mearns, and everywhere in between.
We are talking today about energy production and the importance of renewable energy while the reality is happening in our communities and industries throughout the north-east. If the devolved Scottish Government really cared about our energy production, the cabinet secretary would be meeting the communities I have met. She would have spoken to the people I have spoken to. She would have taken the time to go outside, on to her own doorstep, and listen to the voices outside the Parliament that are telling the Scottish National Party to think again.
Not for the first time, I point out to the member that the ministerial code does not allow ministers to meet community groups that are engaged in live planning applications.
They can meet with SSE but they cannot meet with the people they are meant to represent. If the minister reads the ministerial code, he will see that that is wrong.
When I saw that there was to be another debate on renewable energy, I, like many others, assumed that we would once again be talking about a just transition to renewables or the future of our oil and gas sector—or that there would maybe even be word of the much-delayed energy strategy. I was therefore quite surprised when I saw the focus on nuclear. So, that is this week’s anti-science from this out-of-ideas SNP Government. What should be the most important discussion of our time—how we make sure that we have the energy resources that we need during international destabilisation—instead turns into a nonsense debate that is designed to score political points for this out-of-touch, out-of-ideas SNP Government.
We are living in a time of global uncertainty when most of our energy requirements are still met from oil and gas. At a time when we should be looking at how we can become more energy self-sufficient in the short term and more green in the medium-to-long term, this Government would rather stoke political grievance. We should be looking at how we can fulfil our energy needs by expanding our domestic oil and gas supplies in the short term. We are overreliant on imported oil and gas now, and the SNP wants to increase that by shutting off the taps of the North Sea. Its presumption against new oil and gas is hurting the industry, the north-east and the towns and communities that rely on the sector.
We also know that energy based on solar and wind power is not reliable all year round. We must ensure that we have the required base-load when we need it, which is why so many countries are considering small, modular nuclear reactors. Scotland could be leading the way and at the forefront of that technology, but, once again, this Government insists on holding us back, on false science and on scaremongering. This devolved Government should be harnessing the well-paid and highly skilled workers at Torness and Hunterston, but instead it wants to turn its back on them with its scaremongering and pathetic motion today.
Will the member accept an intervention?
I will come back to the minister if I have time.
The Government’s motion says that nuclear power is more expensive, but the contract for difference for Hinckley Point is £92 per megawatt hour, whereas the CFD for the Green Volt floating wind project, which the SNP was so keen to fast track, was £139 per megawatt hour. It is no wonder that Stephen Flynn received £30,000 towards his campaign from one of the owners.
The SNP is against new oil and gas, against nuclear and against speaking to communities and industry. Its only plan is to put all its eggs in one basket; have as much wind energy as possible, miles away from where the demand is; cover our countryside with monster pylons, substations and batteries; and ignore the concerns of our residents.
I have met many communities throughout the north-east that are rightly concerned about the impact of central belt-led SNP policies. They are dealing with the reality of hundreds of kilometres of monster pylons throughout their communities and countryside, and I know that colleagues in the Borders have had similar meetings.
Will the member give way?
No.
They are concerned about prime agricultural land being taken away and covered in concrete for substations or to create bases for monster pylons. They are concerned about operating farm machinery under power lines and about the impact of noise. They have health concerns and concerns about the impact on animals and on the value of their properties, and they are worried about rural depopulation, loss of biodiversity and the fact that the chair of SSE is a member of the panel on the ministerial code. They are concerned about the number of battery storage systems in the planning system, worried about the risks and angry that no one seems to be listening to their concerns.
Will the member take an intervention?
Maybe the member should listen to this.
Will the member take an intervention?
They want to know why undergrounding and offshoring seems to be discounted by both Governments and why the Scottish Government is content to use planning powers to block new nuclear but will not use the same powers to stop the desecration of our countryside.
I will give way to Rachael Hamilton. [Interruption.] SNP members can give way to some of their own colleagues.
Earlier today, it was announced that an application for a wind farm of 52 turbines in the Scottish Borders will go to a public inquiry before Scottish ministers decide its fate. Does Douglas Lumsden share my concern that communities are not put at the heart of decision making? Is it not the case that this Scottish Government will overturn community opposition because of its blind pursuit of net zero?
I hope that the Government does not overturn it, because it needs to listen to communities. There are communities here today, so maybe it can listen to them later.
There are all those questions, but no one—no one—from this Government is prepared to meet community members, look them in the eye and hear their concerns. As I said, some of them are here today, so the Government still has the opportunity. We know that the cabinet secretary has not met them or heard their concerns but that she has, meanwhile, met the companies that want to build those monster pylons. When he was asked about that by Tess White last year, the First Minister was sure that ministers would meet communities, but no minister has had the bottle to do that. It is shameful.
Not only does this Government want to erect pylons in our communities, but it wants to remove residents’ right to object via the planning system, watering down the voices of our residents and removing the right to a public inquiry.
Will Mr Lumsden give way?
Not yet.
This is one of the most important issues that we can and should address in this chamber, and I am genuinely pleased that the Government has brought this business to Parliament today. We need more discussion about our energy future and the price that many of our communities are having to pay. Nuclear power should have a huge part to play in our energy future and would negate much of the need to have monster pylons ruining our countryside, because we could produce energy closer to where it is required. However, this anti-science devolved Government wants to turn its back on all of that.
I will give way briefly to Kevin Stewart.
Can Mr Lumsden explain how the electricity would flow from the proposed nuclear power stations that he wants to see to people’s homes across the country? Does he recognise that pylons play a part in the movement of electricity from nuclear power stations as well as from elsewhere?
Before Mr Lumsden resumes, I say to members that I realise that this debate is going to excite a degree of emotion and passion—that is entirely predictable and, indeed, not undesirable—but I ask members to listen to the member who has the floor instead of shouting from a sedentary position.
Douglas Lumsden, please continue. I can give you the time back.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
What Kevin Stewart does not understand is that, if we build nuclear power stations close to where the demand is, we negate the need for pylons. [Interruption.] Obviously, he has not got a clue about the electricity market.
At a time of international uncertainty, we should be securing our energy supplies for the future with a credible mix of sources. This Government is intent on closing doors to viable options, based on far left-wing ideologies that hold little credible science. We should be producing our own oil and gas in the short term and investing in new technologies such as small nuclear reactors. We should be building our renewables sector, but we should also be listening to and working with communities to mitigate and properly compensate. Instead, this Government is intent on using the debate to score cheap political points rather than actually deal with—[Interruption.]
Are SNP members laughing at those communities? They are here to see them. [Interruption.] Does the minister think that that is funny?
Mr Lumsden, please resume your seat.
I remind those in the public gallery that this is a meeting in public, not a public meeting. You should not be participating in the debate.
Mr Lumsden, please start to bring your remarks to a close.
It is shameful that the minister is laughing at the people who have come down here to protest today. [Interruption.] Only the Scottish Conservatives are standing up for the oil and gas sector. Only the Scottish Conservatives believe that we need an energy mix and are listening to the many voices from the real world, not this cloud-cuckoo-land of anti-science nonsense.
I move amendment S6M-16657.3, to leave out from “rejects” to end and insert:
“recognises the importance of renewable energy in Scotland’s future, but believes that a balanced energy mix, including investment in new nuclear power, such as small modular reactors, is essential to ensuring a secure, clean and affordable energy source by reducing the country’s reliance on foreign energy and creating a reliable energy supply for the UK; acknowledges that nuclear power is a proven, low-carbon energy source that operates independently of weather conditions, complementing the variability of renewables and reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels; notes that, while renewables will play a central role in Scotland’s energy transition, they alone cannot provide the constant, stable supply required to meet demand; acknowledges that Scotland’s oil and gas sector has been a cornerstone of the UK’s energy security and economy for decades and will continue to play a crucial role in providing reliable energy, supporting skilled jobs and driving investment in clean energy innovation; recognises the vital contribution of energy companies in leading the transition to a cleaner future through investments in emerging technologies that will underpin net zero goals while maintaining energy resilience; notes that, whilst new renewable and electrical infrastructure is needed, the right of communities to object must be respected, with wind turbines, battery energy storage systems, pylons and other infrastructure only being built where it has the express consent of residents; calls for an energy strategy that embraces renewables, nuclear and the managed use of domestic oil and gas to ensure affordable, stable and low-carbon energy for Scotland’s households and businesses, and welcomes the economic and employment opportunities that a broad-based energy mix will bring to Scotland.”
15:31
When I first saw that the SNP Government was holding a debate on renewable energy, I was really pleased. I thought that it would be a great opportunity to debate what we need to do to support the sector in respect of supply chains, training and manufacturing and to consider the strategic infrastructure that we need, including investment in our ports and resilient grid infrastructure. I was also thinking about the long-term delays in planning and what needs to happen to ensure that we have effective systems for key Government agencies so that they have the resource to provide input into major planning decisions effectively and in a timely fashion.
I did not have enough time in my speech to mention everything. We have doubled the number of people in the Government’s consent screenings team so that we have consents going through within 52 weeks, which has been welcomed by the sector.
Yes, but people are worried about the fact that the Berwick Bank project, for example, has now been on the ministerial desk for more than two years. We have a number of projects that are way over that timescale, so that issue is not fixed. It is clearly an issue in relation to offshore projects, so I would also be keen to hear when the consultation on the sectoral marine plan will be published, as that is long delayed.
It would also be useful to discuss how we can maximise the use of the electricity that is produced by renewables, so that we do not have to pay to turn off turbines and waste the energy, which has long been an issue. For example, the cabinet secretary mentioned hydro. We have had that for more than 80 years. Now we have pumped hydro storage, which is inspiring; it gives us a more joined-up system. The acting cabinet secretary referenced the UK Climate Change Committee’s recent recommendations on doing more to support the installation of heat pumps. The Scottish Government could take the lead on that and do more to support our constituents who want to install solar, then battery and/or heat pumps, to decarbonise their homes—but no, that is not happening.
Then there are the opportunities around using the next generation of wind turbines and floating wind to supply community heat networks. Our Nordic neighbours have used heat networks for decades to deliver affordable, low-carbon heat. That is especially relevant given that our councils all submitted their local heat and energy efficiency strategies more than a year ago.
It would also be good to debate the community benefits that were referenced just a few minutes ago. We have seen that in relation to renewables, but there is much more that we can do to empower communities to develop more projects that will generate long-term jobs and investment locally, whether that is through the community or through co-operatively or municipally owned heat and power. However, we need more effective leadership.
With regard to communities benefiting, does Sarah Boyack agree that the ideal would be communities not getting a cheque for £5,000 per megawatt per annum, but having a share of—a stake in—the ownership, and that the Governments in Scotland and the UK should be working together to deliver that?
That is exactly the principle behind the establishment of Great British Energy and the local power plan, working with the Scottish Government and—crucially—with our local councils, too, because they are in touch with communities on the ground. I agree that having a share, or ownership, is crucial, but it is not an option for a lot of communities.
Finally, I even wondered whether, today, we would see the publication of the Scottish Government’s long-awaited energy and just transition plan, but no. Apart from name checking renewables, the SNP motion is negative—it ignores the contribution that is currently made by the nuclear sector and is in denial about the opportunities that that could deliver. It is a retrograde motion.
I do not pretend that the world has not had nuclear safety issues historically, but safety standards are now internationally agreed and based on experience, and are at the heart of the design of new small modular reactors. It is vital that standards are met, with monitoring and well-trained management and staff, and that safety is fundamental to the operation of nuclear power stations.
Should historical safety concerns mean that we rule out the contribution that nuclear power can make?
Will the member take an intervention?
I would be delighted to take an intervention on that point.
The member mentions safety. I merely ask whether she would be content to have a nuclear waste repository in her constituency.
I can give you the time back, Ms Boyack.
Well actually, just next door to my constituency we have Torness nuclear power station, which has been operating for decades. The key issue is safe waste. In fact, the issue that people usually raise with me is waste in our waters and on our beaches, so we need to tackle waste across our society.
To go back to my point, Labour’s amendment is clear that we need to maximise the contribution of low-carbon energy technology, and in order to transition successfully to low and zero carbon energy sources, we need to deliver energy security. We need a sustainable generation baseline and, in our view, nuclear has to be part of the future energy mix. It is highly efficient—
Will the member take an intervention?
If it is brief.
I call Douglas Lumsden, briefly.
Thank you—I will be brief.
On energy security, do you not feel that it is better that we actually produce our own gas, rather than rely on imports?
Through the chair, always.
The thing is that we are going to have our oil and gas for decades to come, and we need a joined-up approach. For example, there is floating wind energy where offshore oil and gas is being produced, but we have to take responsibility with regard to the climate emergency, which is hitting our constituents now. When I talk to people up in the north-east and look across the country at who can get insurance for their homes and buildings, it is clear that there are issues that we need to deal with. It has to be a fair transition, which is why nuclear has to be part of the process. It is a highly efficient, zero-emissions source of energy that generates more than 20 per cent of the electricity that we currently consume and provides high-skilled, well-paid reliable jobs that generate income in those communities with a power plant.
There are absolutely lessons to be learned. I very much agree on the failures that we have seen down south over the past decade from the Tory Government with regard to nuclear power stations and rising costs, but we need to learn from those experiences and not rule out the tech on principle. If we ruled out projects that did not deliver on time, the Scottish Government would have some major challenges.
Moreover, the development of SMRs is a game changer—they are now a real option, and they are more economic and will deliver on-going reliable electricity as we go forward.
As the Labour amendment says, nuclear and renewables are not mutually exclusive—they are complementary parts of Scotland having a fossil fuel-free energy mix into the future. If we do not take up that challenge, we will miss out economically. Our European neighbours have 12 nuclear plants at planning stages; we have none. We have one nuclear power station left in Scotland, at Torness. Our workers on that site have kept the lights on and powered our country since the 1980s, and they deserve a future and a fair, just transition. In addition, we might think of the benefits for construction.
We need to decarbonise our homes and buildings and our industrial sector, but we should do so in a way that supports workers and ensures that they have jobs now and in the future. That is what we need to benefit our local communities, but it is clear today that that is not what the SNP is planning for. The SNP wants an argument, but—while that approach was very successful for the first 20 minutes of this debate—we need to work together, because these are long-term decisions.
We welcome the extension of Torness’s lifespan to 2028, which will keep those skilled, well-paid and unionised jobs in our local communities.
Sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer—I see that the light is flashing. I was told that I had nine minutes.
You were told that you had seven minutes.
Okay—I apologise.
The power that the site has provided to Scotland has meant that we avoided 146 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions. Should we not be delivering a low-carbon future?
Ed Miliband clearly wants to work with the Scottish Government to deliver our clean power mission, and Anas Sarwar said today that we should welcome the support from the UK Government for the next generation of nuclear energy technology so that Scotland does not miss out.
Let us have a joined-up approach. Let the Scottish Government deliver the leadership that our renewables industry urgently needs, and let us look at a sustainable baseline of power. We urgently need a change of direction—let us get on with it.
I move amendment S6M-16657.2, to leave out from “rejects” to end and insert:
“recognises the huge potential, and progress made, in Scotland to develop renewable energy generation capacity; considers that Scotland has a future as a renewables powerhouse and that this will help with the long-term ambitions to decarbonise Scotland’s energy usage; acknowledges that, to successfully transition to low- and zero-carbon energy sources and deliver energy security, it will require a sustainable generation baseline; considers that nuclear energy is therefore an essential part of the future energy mix, as a highly efficient, zero-emissions source of energy that generates over 20% of the electricity consumed in Scotland; notes that Torness nuclear power station directly supports hundreds of jobs, as well as many more in the wider economy in the region, and welcomes the decision to extend its lifespan; welcomes the support from the UK Government for the next generation of nuclear energy technology and the development of small modular reactors; regrets that Scotland will miss out on these investment and job opportunities due to the Scottish Government’s opposition to new nuclear energy projects, and calls on it to end its outdated ideological opposition to small modular reactors.”
15:40
There is a great deal to talk about, so I hope that the task of dismissing the argument for new nuclear will be the quick part of this speech.
The minister already mentioned costs. The massive up-front capital costs that have to be repaid over the operational lifetime mean that new nuclear will deliver energy at £109 per megawatt hour, compared with less than half of that—£44 for offshore wind, £41 for large-scale solar and just £38 for onshore wind.
On timescales, we know that emission cuts are needed quickly and that nuclear is slow to deliver. That goes for big projects such as Hinkley C, which was announced in 2010 and is unlikely to operate before the 2030s after a vast cost overrun. It is also true for the idea of small modular reactors, with which some nuclear lobbyists have a current love affair. Although designs and prototypes have been in development for decades, they are still not delivering on a commercial scale anywhere in the world.
If SMRs ever end up delivering on their long-promised advantages, those advantages will depend on deployment at scale, including through standardised design models and minimising on-site construction. That is not great for the jobs argument that some of the advocates rely on either.
As for the argument about base-load, if the task before us was simply to rebuild like for like a low-carbon version of the 20th century energy system, the concept of base-load cannot be avoided. However, we are seeing the emergence of a new energy system that is based on diverse, decentralised renewable generation, demand reduction, large-scale deployment of new forms of energy storage and lots of interconnection for highly efficient, long-distance electricity trading between markets, and smart technology to smooth the variability of demand and supply.
On the point about having a base-load, we absolutely need renewables, but you also have intermittent renewables, and much more electricity supply is needed. Is it not a win-win to do both?
Please speak through the chair.
All of the range of technologies that I have just described are the reason why we are moving away from the world where centralised base-load generation is required and towards a more diverse, decentralised energy system. In short, the clean, secure and energy-efficient energy system that we need simply does not rely on nuclear.
Let us look at where Scotland’s advantages lie. We have a strong track record on renewables. Successive Governments have set targets that many so-called experts dismissed; they said that renewables would never generate that much. However, those targets were successfully exceeded. In some years, we are now generating more in renewable electricity than the electricity that we consume.
We have skills in oil and gas that can transfer to many new industries, including areas such as green hydrogen, if both Governments are proactive, because we know that the oil and gas companies will not be.
Scotland also has many areas where we need to catch up on lost ground. We waste too much energy and we still construct our buildings as though energy is cheap to use. There have been improvements in energy efficiency standards in new builds, but that must go further. We have to start treating investment in the energy efficiency of existing buildings as a national strategic infrastructure priority.
We rely too much on private ownership and not enough on public and community ownership. There is a strong case for an ambitious target for the amount of wholly community-owned renewable energy in Scotland and for priority access to land for community energy to make that target a reality. The Government must put in place support for community projects to access the capital that they need for repowering. Commercial repowering must also deliver community benefit, just as new-build commercial wind should.
That is in addition to the need to learn from the best of Denmark’s experience, which has been building heat networks for 50 years and doing it for public benefit rather than for private profit, which protects its energy consumers. With communities owning their own heat infrastructure and renewable generating capacity, that experience shows us that we do not need to replicate an energy system that extracts profit from people in fuel poverty.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have time, I am afraid.
We have an energy system that is still regulated as though it is for the needs of the 20th century. Renewable electricity is the cheapest power to generate and should be the cheapest to consume, but the way that the UK regulates the energy market artificially increases its price to consumers and acts as a barrier to people shifting away from fossil fuels for heat and transport.
We also have a gap between the political desire to be seen as climate leaders and the political courage to act. Despite our strong track record on renewables, there has been little to no progress on other sectors such as land, buildings and transport, and there is now a series of delays to the energy strategy and just transition plan. I have seen suggestions that the legal rulings on the unlawful approval of Rosebank and Jackdaw have in some way led to those delays. That can be the case only if the Government proposes to express positive support for those unlawfully approved developments.
The heat in buildings bill would relate to one of the most obvious areas in which we do not just need to cut emissions but to deploy systems that can use renewable electricity to displace fossil fuels at scale and in a way that will cut people’s bills. That was accelerating in the first two years of the current parliamentary session, and the bill was on track to be introduced before the end of 2024. Now the bill is absent, with no explanation.
Renewables growth did not happen by magic. Scotland was successful because successive Governments gave clear and consistent signals to innovators, investors, the workforce and policy makers that Scotland was serious about renewables. That is the clarity that we need on the clean heat sector—for building owners, investors, installers and those who train them, and for the businesses that are innovating in new systems. The benefits are there for the taking in jobs, reduced bills, emissions cuts and energy security, but only if the Scottish Government ends the delay, commits to a truly ambitious agenda and puts the bill before the Parliament now.
I move amendment S6M-16657.1, to insert at end:
“; believes, however, that for the benefits of renewable energy to be maximised, further action is needed; further believes that both governments should place a higher priority on public and community ownership of renewable energy infrastructure; recognises the need for the UK Government to make changes to energy regulation and pricing to incentivise renewable generation, storage and grid infrastructure, and to make electrification of heat and transport more financially attractive, and further recognises the urgent need for the Scottish Government to end the delays to the Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan and the planned Heat in Buildings Bill, which must be introduced to the Parliament as soon as possible.”
15:47
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak for the Liberal Democrats in this debate. As we have heard several times today, Scotland has the potential to lead the world when it comes to the production of clean energy. The need to take advantage of that opportunity is underscored by what we discussed earlier, which is our energy security and the volatile global situation, as well as the volatile markets of recent years.
Regardless of our views on nuclear energy, I am sure that we can all agree that the importance of renewable energy to Scotland’s decarbonisation journey should not be understated. Renewable energy is now the cheapest form of energy generation. It can be installed at scale and, crucially, it provides the energy independence that reduces our reliance on imported fuels and insulates us from volatile global markets and threats to our energy security.
As we all know, Scotland has the potential to be a renewables powerhouse. It has been said in the chamber many times that we have the wind, the waves, the technology and the ambition to achieve that. The challenge ahead is not just about how we generate renewable energy but also how we ensure that that energy is abundant, clean and affordable for all. The UK’s renewable energy generation has increased significantly since 2010, and 70 per cent of the electricity that is generated in Scotland is from renewable technology. That is progress, and we should be glad of it.
Are the Liberal Democrats content that our countryside is being covered with pylons, substations and batteries?
I will come on to the grid in more depth. However, Douglas Lumsden is right to raise the impact of energy transmission on our communities. Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks could certainly do more to bring the hearts and minds of communities with it, rather than adopt the path of least resistance, as it seems to be doing at the moment. He will be aware of my party’s support for several community-led campaigns, particularly in the far north.
Scotland’s renewable energy generation has made great progress, but we need to go much further if we are to meet our net zero targets. The Climate Change Committee has been clear that the United Kingdom must accelerate the deployment of renewable and grid infrastructure in order to provide a decarbonised power system by 2035. At present, we are just not moving fast enough. We will see increasingly higher demand for electricity use as we change the way that we move around, switching to electrically powered transport, and, indeed, the way that we power our homes.
Will the member give way on that point?
Will the member take an intervention?
Do I have a decent amount of time left, Presiding Officer?
I can give time back, Mr Cole-Hamilton.
I will take Martin Whitfield first, then Fergus Ewing.
On the intermittency of renewable energy supply, the best pumped hydro storage can provide only 50 hours of storage. Given that we are talking about an increase in electricity demand, how does the member see the gap being filled?
I will come on to storage in a minute. We have a job to do not only on pumped hydro, but on battery storage.
Mr Cole-Hamilton rightly argues that the process needs to be speeded up. However, to do that, the Scottish and UK Governments should have a standing committee that issues clear mandates to the plethora of public bodies, all of which are involved one way or another in the process. Without that, there is not really any chance that targets set by either Government can conceivably be met. Does the member agree?
Fergus Ewing’s point is typically well made. He is right. There is a great deal of bureaucracy in this landscape. There is unnecessary delay, particularly around the upgrade of the grid. Our efforts to transmit that abundant energy need to be a national work of endeavour, which cannot be held back by the things that he has described.
A major obstacle to the energy transition is Scotland’s grid. It was designed for a system that was dominated by large, centralised power stations. The future of energy, as we all know, is local, distributed and flexible. The failure to invest in that grid is already holding back renewables, as Fergus Ewing alluded to.
In recent years, we have heard that wind farms are being paid hundreds of millions of pounds through constraint payments—constraint payments, Presiding Officer!—to switch off their turbines when the electricity that they are producing cannot be absorbed into the grid. That money is coming directly out of people’s pockets, simply because our infrastructure cannot keep up. At a time when people’s bills are soaring, that feels insane.
We need to do better. We need a modern, smart grid that can handle variable renewable generation, connect Scotland’s energy production with the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe and integrate energy storage solutions. Without that, we will not be able to meet our energy security or affordability goals. Scotland’s energy future must also include expansion in energy storage. The wind does not always blow; the sun does not always shine. To make the most of our vast renewable potential, we must invest in large-scale storage, as Martin Whitfield was right to highlight, including pumped hydro and battery technology. The tech exists—it is just not there at scale.
Within that context, we must also consider the role of nuclear power. Scottish Liberal Democrats have always championed an evidence-based approach to decarbonising energy generation, which helps us to reach net zero while meeting Scotland’s energy needs safely and affordably. The same commitment to rigorous assessment must apply to all future energy technologies, including new generations of nuclear power. Any evaluation of nuclear power must be based on clear evidence, considering the full life cycle of a technology, from construction to decommissioning and long-term legacy.
Currently, no small modular reactors are operational for power generation. With dozens of different designs under development worldwide, it remains impossible to conduct a fair and comprehensive assessment of their costs, environmental impacts and risks. The developers of SMRs or any other form of new nuclear power would need to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that their technology is effective, safe, clean and value for money, and that it carries with it the good wishes of their communities. Crucially, investment in research must not come at the expense of the renewables sector, which already delivers clean, cheaper and faster energy solutions.
Scotland is well placed to lead on the energy transition of our world-class universities, engineering expertise and industrial base provide a strong foundation for advancing cutting-edge technologies. To truly harness those opportunities, the Scottish and UK Governments must go further and work together by ramping up investment in renewables, unlocking green jobs and creating a more prosperous and sustainable energy future.
We move to the open debate.
15:54
I seem to be speaking a lot about energy recently, and that is not just in the scheduled debates. Energy bills are a pressing concern for folk right across Scotland. Thousands upon thousands of folk are struggling to pay them, and many who would have been comfortable just a few years ago are now feeling the pinch. As if folk were not scunnered enough, they have just heard the news that their bills are due to go up again.
In my Donside constituency, every day this winter, I have heard folks’ experiences of fuel poverty. Even in the energy capital of Europe, folk cannot afford their energy bills. That needs to change, and it needs to change soon.
People are not willing to wait two decades for their energy bills to go down. I believe that that is the timeline for a new nuclear power station to be planned and constructed in the UK. It is also a timeline that I do not think delivers for thousands of my constituents who rely on the energy sector for their livelihoods. I will not miss any opportunity to shoehorn in a call for more funding and support for a just transition and to keep making the case for those workers’ futures.
To my mind, the future of many of those workers is Scotland’s renewable future. We have the energy; we just need the power. Actually, we do not just have the energy, because we have the people as well, and we need to keep them. Since the 1970s, we have assembled one of the best workforces in the world, by training folk locally and encouraging people to move here from far and wide. We have had a little bit of an advantage, because not that many places have oil, and many of the other places that do have it have harsh climates or political regimes that are based on different values to our own.
Although it may feel like we have more wind than most and although our coastline offers huge opportunities, we have to recognise that everywhere has sun, wind and water. Looking ahead, we are now truly competing against the world. If we are going to seize the opportunity to become a net zero capital, we need to act now. We have a huge head start, though, given the amazing workforce that we have. Some of their skills might not match perfectly with what is needed, but Aberdeen has a long history of being able to improvise and adapt.
Our city has been weathered by the North Sea and carved out of granite. It established itself as Europe’s oil and gas capital through tremendous engineering feats that saw us extracting oil 100 miles off our coast from miles beneath the surface. Aberdeen has helped to shape the modern world, and it will do so again in the move to net zero. We are the future net zero capital of the world, so the next chapter in Aberdeen’s story will see us harness the energy of mother nature.
To make that happen, though, a number of things have to occur. One is investment—in green skills, in the supply chain, in a just transition and in the Acorn project, which should be given the green light. We need certainty. New technologies need price guarantees, and the whole industry has been calling for tax certainty. No other industry sees its taxes vary to the extent that the energy industry has seen over the past few years. Finally, there is migration. We have a track record of assembling the best workforce in the world, but employers across my constituency have told me that they are struggling with the visa rules that are in place now.
Will the member taken an intervention?
I will take an intervention from Mr Kerr. If he is going to speak about nuclear power stations, I would like to ask him where one will go in his region.
I will speak about nuclear power stations, but it is not my turn to speak yet—I am just intervening on what Jackie Dunbar has said.
I am interested in her claim, which is right, that we need to invest in skills. How exactly does an SNP Scottish Government invest in skills while slashing the budgets of the college sector? How will investment in skills happen if you are not investing in college education and increasing the number of apprenticeship places in Scotland?
Always speak through the chair.
We have a £500 million just transition fund that will help our workers in the north-east of Scotland and Moray. That is one way of doing it.
Let us contrast that with the alternative. We could dither about for decades to plan and build nuclear power stations, which would then likely take decades longer to break even. It is estimated that Hinkley Point C’s construction will cost about £46 billion in today’s money—that is for just one plant. I do not for one second believe that MSPs in the chamber who have campaigned against pylons in their constituencies and regions would be willing to welcome a new nuclear power plant in their patches.
At this point, I will take an intervention from any member who wants to campaign for a nuclear power plant in the area that they represent.
Will the member give way?
Mr Whitfield, please tell me where the nuclear power station should be.
I am more than happy for Torness B to be built in the South Scotland constituency of East Lothian.
Will the member take an intervention?
Can I speak? I am aware that I have only 10 seconds left—[Interruption.] Mr Kerr, you may laugh, but I have taken your intervention and I have taken Mr Whitfield’s.
Speak through the chair. I can give you a little extra time for the interventions, Ms Dunbar.
Thank you.
As I said, if folk truly believe in nuclear power, they would want a plant in their areas, and I am grateful to Mr Whitfield for owning his point of view. I remind members that, as Mr Stewart said, nuclear power stations need pylons to carry electricity. I believe that it was the former Tory Government that denied us the opportunity to have power lines going underground, because that would have cost far too much money.
I want Scotland to become a hub for clean, green and cheap renewable energy. I want a just transition for the north-east. I want Aberdeen to become the net zero capital of the world. I want my constituents to no longer struggle to heat their homes. That is what I want, and the way to realise that is through a renewable future.
16:01
In debates such as this, we often get bogged down in arguments about oil and gas versus renewables, net zero versus no net zero and, as is the case with the Government motion, nuclear versus renewables, but it is not as simple as that. The truth is that there is more common ground than people—even Mr Lumsden—would like to let on that there is. This could have been a positive debate about renewables, because there is a good story to tell on that. Instead, it is a dial-the-clock-back-50-years debate against nuclear, so let me tackle that one first.
The SNP Government’s view—we have known about it for years, so we do not need a debate about it—is that Scotland should not build new nuclear because the electricity that is produced is expensive. However, that does not consider the cost of intermittency—the wind not always blowing—or of transmission. Scotland has the most expensive transmission network in the UK, because lots of wind power is generated in rural areas, very far from where it is needed. Stable, predictable and geographically concentrated nuclear is much more straightforward to transmit. Wind energy is available only 45 per cent of the time, and it requires back-up from gas. Nuclear is available 90 per cent of the time and is therefore more reliable.
Germany, Austria and Belgium have seen their carbon emissions rise after the decommissioning of nuclear plants. The advice from the National Energy System Operator—NESO—to the UK Government on how Great Britain can achieve green power by 2030 included contracting more offshore wind capacity, increasing battery capacity, the delivery of carbon capture and nuclear power. The Climate Change Committee has previously suggested a target of 10GW of nuclear by 2025.
I do not often agree with Keir Starmer, but he was right when he said:
“This country hasn’t built a nuclear power station in decades. We’ve been let down, and left behind.
Our energy security has been hostage to Putin for too long, with British prices skyrocketing at his whims.
I’m putting an end to it—changing the rules to back the builders of this nation, and saying no to the blockers who have strangled our chances of cheaper energy, growth and jobs for far too long.”
Hostage to Putin—is that what we really want?
I mentioned Germany, which is a great example of why countries should not phase out nuclear. Germany now burns more coal than anyone else in Europe in order to cover its electricity needs when the wind and sun are down. German industrial and domestic electricity prices are some of the very highest in the European Union—they are about 30 to 50 per cent higher than prices in France, which gets 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear. German industrial competitiveness is suffering from persistent high electricity prices, which have been caused by the nuclear phase-out. The motion that is being debated is an example of why we need a change of Government in Scotland.
Let me turn to renewables, because that is an area in which there is some positivity.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes.
Mr Simpson ostensibly represents the same people that I do in the Parliament, because the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth constituency is in the Central Scotland region that he represents. He is advocating a new generation of nuclear power stations. Is he suggesting that they should be in Cumbernauld, Kilsyth or anywhere in the Central Scotland region that he represents? We are hearing that there should be new stations—where should they be?
Nuclear power stations are—if the minister stops interrupting from a sedentary position, I will get the answer out—mostly by the coast. Central Scotland, minister? Think about it.
The recent report from the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit and Confederation of British Industry economics showed that Scotland has had the UK’s highest growth in economic activity from net zero businesses since 2022, and the green sector has grown at breakneck speed—by a fifth. Renewables make up 4.9 per cent of the Scottish economy, generating £9.1 billion in gross value added for Scotland. Over the same period, total employment supported by the net zero economy in Scotland has grown by 19.5 per cent, which is equivalent to 16,500 full-time jobs.
I am worried about Mr Lumsden’s blood pressure on many occasions, but today, he was certainly right when he posed the question whether we should put all our eggs in one basket. The answer to that must be no. Energy security and getting bills down have to be a priority. The oil and gas sector supports 83,700 jobs, so we cannot just shut it down. Everyone in the chamber wants Grangemouth—which is in my region—to survive, but they should reflect on their relentlessly negative stance towards what it produces.
If we accept that we need more electricity, we have to get it from A to B. There can be no transition without transmission. Scotland will be a key part of that journey, with billions of pounds invested and the potential to unlock wider economic growth. However, that must be done with community involvement.
Will the member take an intervention?
Mr Simpson is bringing his remarks to a close.
I am just finishing. The Government’s bizarre motion should be rejected. We need a mix of electricity supply, and Scotland should play its part in that.
16:08
I am always very pleased to speak in any debate on energy. As I am a north-east MSP, today’s debate on Scotland’s renewables future is no exception.
Scotland’s offshore energy industry has been a success story for over 50 years. Although we do not need to rehearse the fact that our energy mix is shifting away from oil and gas, it is worth repeating that the tax regime that is connected to Scotland’s energy industry has seen hundreds of billions of pounds of tax revenue flow to the UK Government. Scotland has done its share of heavy lifting, heating our homes and businesses and keeping the lights on, and I hope that that continues.
However, as they say, progress is impossible without change, and we are now on a different trajectory, with a unique opportunity to repurpose our energy sector through a managed just transition. As the Deputy First Minister set out last week in a debate on increasing investment in Scotland, renewable energy generation reached a record high in the first half of 2024 and Scotland’s net zero sector has grown by more than 20 per cent since 2022. Scotland’s renewable energy industry supported more than 42,000 jobs and an economic output of more than £10.1 billion in 2021, according to the Fraser of Allander Institute. The UK’s net zero industry is growing three times faster than the overall UK economy, and it generated more than £83 billion for the UK in 2024. I call that a success story.
Some of that success is visible in my Aberdeen South and North Kincardine constituency. One business with more than 40 years of deep-water experience is scaling up its testing of offshore platform technology, which is offering important opportunities for foundation manufacturing in Scotland. Another business is developing a new type of hydrogen storage vessel to support projects that require a method of moving hydrogen to end users. Currently, there is no UK or Scottish manufacturer of that type of storage vessel; such vessels are all imported.
Port of Aberdeen continues on its journey to create an international hub for offshore wind, including by further deepening the south harbour, and the brilliant Net Zero Technology Centre’s TechX clean energy accelerator programme supports unbelievably talented clean energy start-ups to continue their journey in accelerating the transition to a net zero industry.
Of course, there are challenges relating to planning, regulatory processes and financial mechanisms. That last point has been raised with me recently by several businesses that are seeking to expand and would like a clearer shared investment strategy between the Scottish and UK Governments that will provide confidence to underpin the level of investment that is required to unlock infrastructure projects. That is particularly relevant to our port infrastructure in enabling authorities, including Port of Aberdeen, to support floating offshore wind projects. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary and the minister for their respective engagement on that issue.
I also welcome the cabinet secretary’s acknowledgement that the good practice principles must be improved and that community benefit must be ramped up—football shirts and pocket parks do not cut it. However, I remind Mr Lumsden that he inserted an industrial development on a treasured green space in my constituency, known as St Fittick’s park, with absolutely no consultation when he was one of the leaders of Aberdeen City Council, so we must all be genuine in our commentary on community benefit.
At last week’s meeting of the cross-party group on renewable energy and energy efficiency, we heard concerns about zonal pricing, which is being considered by the UK Government as part of its energy pricing mechanism review. We heard that industry bodies, trade unions and investors are very concerned that the proposal will have a material impact on the scale of the renewables sector’s investment in Scotland and on our ability to drive key projects and unlock jobs in the supply chain here. I would very much welcome an update on the Scottish Government’s position on that issue in the minister’s summing-up speech.
Reducing energy bills sits at the heart of our energy thinking. SSE’s detailed briefing sets out the challenges of our antiquated and absurd electricity charging system very well. It references analysis by Scottish Renewables that an average 1GW Scottish offshore wind project would pay £38 million a year to use the electricity network, whereas an identical wind farm in the congested seas off England’s south coast would get a £7 million payment for the same service. That is utterly unbelievable, so the regime needs urgent reform.
How much would consumers pay in that scenario?
I do not know, but I would imagine that they would not pay any more—I would hope that they would pay less.
That allows me to segue to my final position on nuclear power, which was shaped in no small part by my working-class parents, who saw that energy option as an insult to Scotland.
The debate on nuclear has moved on, and although the new UK Government continues with its plans to boost nuclear power in England and Wales, I fail to understand the rationale for supporting an energy source that produces vast quantities of waste from which radioactivity takes decades to reduce to safe levels, is vastly more expensive than renewables, takes decades to build, cannot be switched on and off easily and is potentially dangerous and contaminating. I also agree with Patrick Harvie’s point—we must all get real about our own behaviour and our energy use.
To conclude, nuclear is not an option for Scotland; an exciting future supporting a world-leading renewables industry is.
16:15
I share the aspirations that have been expressed across the chamber and agree that Scotland has huge potential to lead the way on the renewable future. It is unfortunate that we have been such a laggard up to this point, and it is frustrating that we have missed huge opportunities over the generations.
I look, for example, at the contrast in the fortunes of Denmark’s Vestas and Scotland’s Howden. I will take that as one case study. Thirty-five years ago, in 1989—the very year that I was born—Scotland exited the manufacturing of wind turbines, and the works that built those pioneering wind turbines now lie derelict on the south side of Glasgow. That could have been a huge opportunity if we had persevered with more state investment in wind turbines at the early stage. We now see the huge advantage that other countries have in stitching up the global supply chain for wind turbines.
Our particularly harsh weather, extensive coastline and thousands of lochs mean that Scotland boasts a unique environment that is well suited to the installation of wind, hydroelectric and tidal power. I just wish that we were making more of the infrastructure that is required.
That said, it is also irresponsible of the Government here in Scotland not to support a new generation of nuclear energy as part of the mix. Britain and Scotland were the world’s first civil generator of nuclear power, with Calder Hall and Chapelcross in the 1950s. Unfortunately, that industrial leadership was lost through a lack of planning and the break-up of our vertically integrated electricity generation and transmission system in the 1990s.
The Government’s ideological opposition to new nuclear power stations is holding Scotland back from billions of pounds of potential investment and thousands of highly skilled jobs. It does not have to be an either/or—it is a false dichotomy. We can be a clean energy superpower through renewable technologies and new civil nuclear power working in concert.
It is, after all, clear that intermittency is the fundamental challenge, particularly with wind turbine installations. Wind power technology is available only 25 per cent to 45 per cent of the time, while nuclear energy provides a 90 per cent stable base-load supply, which means that we are able to augment intermittency with a stable baseline. That is the fundamental reconciliation that is needed.
When we discuss nuclear power, we are often haunted by past generations of nuclear reactor technologies. Even the Hinkley Point C technology is not appropriate for Scotland. The European pressurised water reactor technology was described by Cambridge Professor Roulstone as a “cathedral within a cathedral”, or an overengineered system that is already obsolete. Technology has already evolved. New, cleaner and neater options are available today, which could be used to help to repower existing nuclear sites in Scotland, such as Torness and Hunterston.
The member is so right. I need only look at 3 November, when 50 per cent of our energy came from gas, 30 per cent from nuclear and 3 per cent from wind. Can he explain why the Government is so against nuclear, except when the wind does not blow and it is prepared to accept nuclear power from France to keep the lights on in Scotland?
The member highlights the fallacy and logical inconsistency that lie at the heart of the Government’s position. It is largely a sunk-cost fallacy—the Government has been so wedded to that position for so long that it is hard for it to walk back from it.
Rolls-Royce has developed new small modular reactor technology, which is around a third of the size of second-generation nuclear plant, such as the existing advanced gas-cooled reactor fleet in Scotland. That would give us the ability to use the existing turbine plant at the sites that I mentioned and to repower them at a fraction of the capital cost of building a new nuclear power station from scratch.
SMRs are also well suited to replacing fossil-fuel fired plants. For example, Longannet had the same generator plant as Hunterston and Torness. It was a shame that it was dynamited and cleared when it could have been repowered using SMRs. We can utilise more of those sites and, in doing so, generate power more efficiently.
It was also really disappointing to learn that, in 2022, the Scottish Government fundamentally rejected any proposal from Ineos and Rolls-Royce to power the Grangemouth refinery using a small modular reactor. We know that the reason why petrochemicals in this country are quickly becoming uncompetitive is the throttling of competitive manufacturing due to high gas prices, which drive our electricity costs. We must avoid missing other opportunities like that and move to a more pragmatic approach whereby nuclear energy is part of the mix. Mr Simpson mentioned what has happened in Germany, which is a warning sign for what could happen in the UK—indeed, it is happening, with the high industrial energy costs that we have here.
We must also take cognisance of what one of our best-ever engineers, the late Sir Donald Miller, told us more than a decade ago. He mentioned that, when he retired from the South of Scotland Electricity Board in the early 1990s, he could take a great deal of satisfaction from the fact that Scotland had
“one of the most secure and cost effective systems”
of electricity generation worldwide. He said:
“Some 60% of our energy was from nuclear and with the hydro we could, incidentally, also claim to be one of the greenest systems with the lowest carbon emissions.”
He added that
“The coal fired station at Longannet”—
which was recently decommissioned but was groundbreaking when it was built—
“was used mainly for back up and profitable exports to England for the benefit of Scottish consumers.”
However, he said:
“Today we see a very different picture. The decommissioning of our conventional generation is fast approaching”—
since then, it has approached—
“and yet there are no plans to replace the generating capacity at Longannet or the nuclear. Even more incomprehensible is that we shall, in a few years, be importing power for much of the time from the new nuclear station to be built just over the border in England”.
As he said, we may wonder
“just why Scotland (birthplace of so much engineering)”—
and a pioneer of nuclear energy—
“should be importing power we could well generate here, exporting highly skilled jobs in the process. And moreover ending up with the least reliable and insecure electricity supply that we have seen for a hundred years. And this at a time when electricity has never been more important in the lifeblood of modern society.”
The words of the late Donald Miller ring very true today. It was rather prophetic of him to say that 10 years ago. I wish that the Government would take more cognisance of the expertise in this country and harness it to deliver a true industrial renaissance.
16:21
Scotland’s energy future is in renewables, and nowhere is that clearer than in my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast. My communities have powered Scotland for generations through fishing and energy and, now, the opportunities that they have with a just transition. However, as with all industries, that transition must not be something that is done to the people—it must be done with them.
We have everything that we need right here—wind, water and a skilled workforce. If we get this right, we will not just keep the lights on but build a sustainable future in which our communities benefit from real investment and lasting opportunities.
We have heard that ministers refuse to meet community groups. Will Karen Adam go and meet community groups—there are many in her constituency—who have real concerns about pylons, substations and batteries?
I meet community groups regularly. If anyone emails me asking for a meeting, I will meet them. However, Alasdair Allan clearly set out earlier that ministers are not permitted to meet those community groups. It is not allowed. I do not want his words to be twisted.
Our focus should be on our renewables and not on nuclear, which is slow, costly and, ultimately, a bad deal for Scotland. The UK Government’s nuclear projects are billions over budget and years behind schedule, and, ultimately, taxpayers are forced to foot that bill. Meanwhile, Scotland’s renewables are delivering right now, providing clean energy, cutting costs and creating jobs. We cannot afford to waste any more time looking backwards.
As we move forward with offshore wind, we must also stand with the people whose lives and livelihoods revolve around Scotland’s seas. That is why I established the cross-party group on fisheries and coastal communities. Fishers deserve a seat at the table, too. I thank the cabinet secretary, Gillian Martin, for attending one of our cross-party meetings. It was greatly appreciated.
The fishers do not just work the sea; they know it, and their knowledge of the waters, ecosystems and realities of the industry must not be ignored. Offshore wind and other developments must be done with them and not to them. If we are serious about a just transition, we must engage early, listen properly and respect the generations of expertise, rather than bringing them in as an afterthought when the plans are signed off. The industry puts low-carbon, high-protein diets on our plates, and that matters.
One company that shows how that can be done well is Ocean Winds. I have met its team regularly—I did so most recently at an event that I hosted here in the Parliament. With its Moray east and Moray west developments, it is set to become the largest offshore wind operator in the country. Its Moray west operations and maintenance base in Buckie is proof of what real investment in renewables can do. A few short years ago, Buckie harbour looked different from how it looks now. It is bringing in new businesses, new jobs and new opportunities. That is the real-world impact of renewables.
However, opportunity does not come without challenge. Higher transmission charges in Scotland make it more expensive than anywhere else in the UK for our offshore wind developers to connect to the grid. Those additional costs could slow our investment. That is unacceptable. To unlock the full potential of offshore wind, we need to have a fairer system that does not penalise Scotland for leading the way.
Another key issue is harbour and port capacity building. That is why Fraserburgh harbour and other ports across my constituency are critical to the conversation. Fraserburgh has big ambitions. I regularly meet Pamela Neri and her team, and I champion the harbour’s master plan with every chance that I get. If we back Fraserburgh properly, it can become a major hub for offshore wind, thereby strengthening supply chains, securing long-term prosperity and creating the jobs that are needed for our local communities.
We need to remember what a just transition means. It is about not just energy but people; it is about valuing the industries and expertise that we already have and making sure that they have a future in a low-carbon Scotland. That means listening to our fishers and investing in our ports. For example, we have an incredible opportunity to be a hub for manufacturing. By linking with local colleges and schools to support the supply chain with a labour force, we can ensure that renewables create jobs and prosperity in the communities that need those things most.
However, while Scotland pushes forward, Labour and the Tories would throw billions at nuclear, despite it being slow, expensive and out of reach for ordinary folk. Their track record speaks for itself—for example, Hinkley Point, which has been mentioned, is billions over budget, years behind schedule and still nowhere near delivering energy. Meanwhile, Scotland’s renewables are already cutting costs and creating jobs. Why would we choose outdated, overpriced and unreliable technology over a proven home-grown industry?
Scotland is leading not only in clean energy but in showing the world what a fair and inclusive transition looks like, yet, last week, the Conservatives voted against the Scottish Government’s budget, which included £237 million for ports and harbours. That is unacceptable.
I am proud to have voted for more investment in our coastal communities. However, we must not stop there. Let us get this right and power on with renewables—for Scotland, our coastal communities and, ultimately, our future.
16:27
It is a pleasure to follow Karen Adam, but she needs to realise that, when we vote for a budget, we do not get to pick and choose which lines to support but have to take it as a whole.
Winston Churchill—who was quoted by Fergus Ewing—said:
“The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty.”
The SNP Government is nothing if not pessimistic. At every turn, it blocks progress, stifles ambition and clings to outdated dogma and ideology. It is time for Scotland to start seeing the opportunities that are before us, and I agree with Graham Simpson that that will take a change of Scottish Government. The SNP will not change. The change that we look for means embracing nuclear energy—the opposite of the motion in the name of the cabinet secretary. That will be part of our clean, secure and prosperous future. However, the SNP and the Greens want to take Scotland down a dead-end road where energy insecurity, high prices and economic decline await us. Their opposition to nuclear power is based not on science or economics, but on blind ideology.
Recently, I met young Scottish apprentices who were working in the nuclear sector. They were bright, ambitious and highly skilled. Their futures were exciting. They were at the forefront of an industry that offers some of the best-paid, most secure and most future-proof jobs in the world.
On the point about economic opportunities, the CBI reported last week that the net zero industry is growing three times faster than the overall UK economy, providing high-wage jobs and boosting energy security. What does the member say in response to that?
I say that we can have it all in Scotland—we can have it all. It is not either/or.
I go back to my young Scottish apprentices. The sad reality, and the indictment of this so-called nationalist Government—it is a very strange nationalism—is that, if they want to pursue their careers, they will have to leave Scotland. That is not just bad policy; it is a betrayal of Scotland’s future.
If we are serious about cutting emissions, getting energy prices lower and securing thousands of skilled jobs for generations to come, we must invest in nuclear energy, particularly SMRs. Nuclear is now one of the safest, most reliable and cleanest energy sources in the world, and SMRs are quicker to build. There is a lot of propaganda about how long it takes, but they are quicker to build, cheaper to operate and far more flexible.
The member mentioned that the idea that it might take a while to build nuclear power stations in Scotland to address our energy needs is simply propaganda. How long does he think that it might take?
The record shows that SMRs can be built in between seven and 10 years. That is very realistic, and it is why we should not be turning up our noses at SMRs in Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will give way one more time.
Does the member recognise that a reactor pressure vessel for an SMR could be built at, for example, Rosyth and then taken by barge to Torness and connected to the existing turbine hall there, which would be a fairly easy job, in relative terms?
I bow before the expertise of Paul Sweeney on these matters, but that sounds exciting to me. That sounds like the kind of future that I want for Scotland and for the people who will live in Scotland.
SMRs take up less space than wind farms and can be located close to where the power is needed. That is critical in relation to the controversies about transmission. Nuclear power stations can be built nearer to where the power will be used, and they run 24/7. They are not weather dependent. As we have heard countless times in this debate, they are the perfect complement to intermittent renewables such as wind and solar when, for example, the sun does not shine, and they create thousands of high-quality jobs in engineering and construction in relation to operations and maintenance.
And here is the kicker: the UK Government—both the previous Conservative one and this Labour one—already backs SMRs. Where is the SNP? It is standing in the way. Billions of pounds of investment and talent could flow into Scotland if we got behind nuclear, boosting our economy instead of watching investment and talent heading out of Scotland to England and Wales or abroad. Scottish businesses and universities could lead in nuclear innovation, attracting global talent and cementing our place as a leader in clean energy technology. However, instead of grasping those opportunities, the SNP banned nuclear outright, shutting Scotland out of a rapidly expanding and exciting global industry.
The United States, China, Canada and EU countries are investing heavily in nuclear, but not Scotland. Meanwhile, the SNP wants to cling on—for comfort, I think—as it sinks to its outdated 1970s anti-nuclear rhetoric while pretending that renewables alone can meet all of Scotland’s energy needs.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is about to conclude.
The SNP is failing Scotland’s workers, offering them false promises of green jobs without delivering real long-term opportunities. It is failing Scotland’s households, and it is failing future generations. If we are serious about having a secure, low-carbon and prosperous future, we must embrace a balanced energy mix that combines renewables, oil and gas for transition, and nuclear. That means lifting Scotland’s nuclear ban and allowing SMRs to be built in Scotland close to where the power is needed. That means supporting nuclear apprenticeships—
Mr Kerr, you need to conclude.
I will.
Yes, but now, please.
That means making Scotland a leader in nuclear innovation. How on earth can you—
I call Fergus Ewing, to be followed by Emma Harper.
16:34
When I had the privilege of being Scotland’s energy minister, for five years from 2011, I was honoured, during a visit to the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, to breakfast with the great Norwegian Fred Olsen. He gave me some advice that helped to shape our then policy and that has remained with me. He explained that, because Scotland has deeper waters than those in the south of England, we would find over time that the cost of constructing offshore wind farms would be far greater if they were fixed to the sea bed, because that sea bed is deeper in Scotland than in the south of England. Therefore, over time, floating offshore wind would give Scotland an innate advantage, not least because turbines could be located to take advantage of different wind directions, so that, when the wind was not blowing in one direction, the floating turbines could be relocated to the most efficacious location for generation.
The Hywind project was the world’s first commercial array of floating offshore wind turbines, and I am indebted to my friend Halfdan Brustad of Equinor for ensuring that some work for part of that project came to Global Energy, although I question how much of the value will accrue to Scotland over time in the form of renewables.
We discussed Ukraine earlier today, and I am bound to reflect that, within the past 24 hours, the Norwegian Government has confirmed that it is now considering utilising its sovereign wealth fund to assist Ukraine. That sovereign wealth fund is currently worth almost £1.4 trillion. For those of us who, like me, are unfamiliar with that particular figure, that is £1,380 billion. That fund came about because Norway invested what it earned from its vast oil and gas resources. The Norwegians did not even put any money in for the first five years, until 1990 or thereabouts.
Will Mr Ewing address two points? First, there is the issue of the Scottish Government selling the sea bed off cheaply and not using the money to invest in new energies.
My second question is being asked for the people who are in the gallery today, who have come from the north-east and really want to hear this. What is Mr Ewing’s view on bringing people along with you and not taking away prime and productive arable land or destroying their homeland in the process?
Thank you, Ms White—that is quite enough. We will go back to Mr Ewing for a response to those points.
I think I will leave the first point. I am not sure that I would accept that, but, to be candid, I have not made a specific study of the matter and it would therefore be wrong for me to form a view. I know that it is a bit of a novelty not to form a view when one is unacquainted with the facts, but I am an old-fashioned kind of guy. I will come to the second point.
I was about to say that I think there is a necessary future for oil and gas in Scotland and the UK but that it is dwindling and the cessation of production that we are talking about means that fields such as Rosebank and Jackdaw are, frankly, de minimis in relation to global production. There are 100 million barrels of oil—or the gas equivalent—in the world every day, but we, in the UK, do not contribute much more than about 1 per cent of that. Our Green colleagues would like to see the reduction and elimination of all future developments—even though we have invested billions of pounds in them and the taxpayer would have to get that money back—but that would be completely futile, because we produce only 0.1 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions. If Scotland ceased to exist, that would not make the slightest difference to global warming, and nor would anything that we do.
We do need gas storage, as Britain’s storage capacity is about 10 times less than that of Germany, the Netherlands or France. My friend Charles Hendry, an excellent former UK energy minister, has been making that point for a long time.
I have made this point before and I will make it again: communities need to come with us on this journey towards renewables. It is a journey that I started off. This will not make me popular with some of the audience in the public gallery, but I possibly granted more consents than any other minister in Europe in my time. They should please feel free to boo—sorry, they are not allowed to do that. [Interruption.]
To be serious, the opposition is growing. It is growing in the Highlands and it is growing in Aberdeenshire and in the south of Scotland. The way to deal with it is for the UK Government and the Scottish Government to revive the scheme that I was pleased to take forward with some good officials, whereby communities were provided with 10 per cent or thereabouts of the capital cost of a share in a development by the renewable energy investment fund—
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time. I have just 10 seconds left.
There was assistance with that, with 90 per cent of the funding coming from a variety of banks. That can happen, and it should happen. If it does happen, not all but some people will come with us on this journey as volunteers, not conscripts.
16:40
I will start, as others have, by discussing the development of nuclear power and highlighting the calls for increased spend on nuclear power. We know that one plant alone, Hinkley Point C, is projected to cost around £46 billion in construction costs. I am a bit dumfoonert as to how we can call nuclear “clean and green” when hazardous and toxic waste needs to be handled safely. There is a reason why nuclear decommissioning—
Ms Harper highlights Hinkley Point and the £46 billion or so in costs. Quite close to Emma Harper’s region, of course, is Sellafield. In October last year, The Guardian reported that the costs for clearing up Sellafield had reached £136 billion. Does Emma Harper think that that is a worthwhile cost? Is it worth paying that amount for clean-up when we could have clean energy—
Thank you, I think that we have got the gist. Ms Harper.
I visited Chapelcross recently and part of the conversation was about the on-going clean-up. There is a reason why nuclear decommissioning takes decades and requires many different highly skilled professionals to safely decommission sites such as Chapelcross, on the other side of the Solway from Sellafield.
The massive cost of new nuclear is no way to run an energy policy and no legacy to leave future generations—it simply adds nuclear waste to the carbon waste that we are already bequeathing them. We need renewables not only to reduce the pollution that is emitted now but to minimise the impact on our descendants who will live in our land decades and centuries from now. That is why I want to recognise Scotland’s renewables revolution and remind members of the huge role that South Scotland is playing in it.
We have one of the biggest offshore wind farms in the country at Robin Rigg in the Solway Firth, although it is a source of continued annoyance that all the energy that is generated goes to the south side of the Solway and the marine support is carried out from Workington port rather than from Galloway.
The Galloway hydro scheme is now over 90 years old. It was designed and built at a time when terms such as “renewables” and “net zero” were not part of our daily lingo. The generating stations run by Drax along the route have a generating capacity of 110MW. That hydro power legacy continues to be shaped in the present day, marrying the old with the new. Right now, just outside Kelloholm, the former Glenmuckloch opencast coal mine is being repurposed into a major hydro-pumped storage facility.
I thank the First Minister for visiting The Carbon Removers at Crofthead farm near Crocketford in January this year, where I also went on an earlier visit with the cabinet secretary. The First Minister was able to witness the technology that is being developed there for carbon capture, storage and processing. After the visit, The Carbon Removers announced a deal for carbon capture and storage in the North Sea, securing existing jobs and creating new high-quality, high-skilled roles in the technologies of the future, not just in that area but in Dumfriesshire as well. That is exactly what the just transition should be about; it is for all of us.
I have visited, on a number of occasions, a local employer that contributes well to Scotland’s renewables industry—Natural Power, near Dalry in the Glenkens area. I was able to secure a British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly economy committee visit to Natural Power as part of that committee’s inquiry into energy policy across the islands. Jeremy Sainsbury, who is the Great Britain policy director at Natural Power—
Will the member take an intervention?
Just give me a wee second.
Jeremy Sainsbury and his team made us so welcome and provided an excellent overview of some of Natural Power’s work in managing the energy that is generated by onshore turbines across the whole UK.
I will take an intervention from Mr Carson.
Ministers are expected to observe the principles of public life, known as the Nolan principles, which include duty and respect. They outline ethical expectations for those in public life, reflecting the behaviours that the public expects of office bearers.
Given the number of applications in Dumfries and Galloway that have been rejected by the public and by the council with the decision subsequently overturned by this Government—including the Kendoon to Tongland reinforcement project, on which the Government overruled an independent reporter—does the member believe that her Government is working to the Nolan principles and respecting the rights of those living in Galloway who reject the industrialisation of rural Galloway?
Okay—I think that we have got the gist. I call Ms Harper.
I thank Mr Carson for that intervention speech.
We need infrastructure to back up the new renewables, but it needs to be balanced. I know that a controversial decision was made last week on the Kendoon to Tongland pylon replacement project, but I think that the people in Galloway acknowledge the need for power—they just wanted the line to be undergrounded where appropriate, so I have a lot of sympathy with what Finlay Carson talked about in his intervention. Nevertheless, I am clear that we need to focus on what we can do to improve our renewable energy in the south of Scotland, not only in Dumfries and Galloway but across the Borders.
The south, like the country as a whole, is awash with renewables operating right now, as well as future potential. However—and there is a “however”—it is scandalous that the price that every household in my region pays for its electricity is so much higher than in other parts of the UK. Standard charges for southern Scotland are 54 per cent higher per day than for customers in London. Even with changes that are coming soon, the cost will still be 22 per cent higher for a constituent who is living literally right next door to our generating sites.
I am conscious of the time, Deputy Presiding Officer—
Yes, Ms Harper—you will need to conclude.
Yes—I am conscious of the time.
As a final point, if we had full control over energy in Scotland—over pricing, distribution and everything else—a just transition is what we could achieve. We could make things better for people if we had independence.
16:47
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests with regard to community wind power.
I begin by thanking the SNP for finally bringing to the chamber a debate on nuclear energy. It has taken a long time. Time and again, the subject has been raised in the chamber, and we have argued for a serious discussion about Scotland’s energy future and about how we are going to keep the lights on, industry running and bills down. Yet, despite the grandstanding that we hear from the SNP and Green members on energy policy, it has been a long time since they have actually given Parliament the chance to debate nuclear power in Government time. I welcome the debate—better late than never.
As the motion sets out, and as we have heard, nuclear power is apparently too dangerous and expensive, and Scotland does not need it. That is the same SNP that told us that we could run the country on wind and wishful thinking, and that importing gas from Norway was somehow better than using all the tools at our disposal to secure our own energy future. It is the same SNP—and the same Green party—that would rather see Scotland rely on imported nuclear energy from England and France than for us to generate it ourselves.
We have had contributions from Douglas Lumsden and Graham Simpson, and I thank them for referring to the strike price, which is £172 per megawatt hour for tidal stream and £139 per megawatt hour for floating offshore. More importantly, they referred to the fact that both those sources of energy can provide, at the most, 60 per cent reliability, whereas nuclear power can provide 90 per cent. That is important, because it is about how we keep the lights on.
What is at stake here are jobs, investment and energy security. Torness nuclear power station, in the south of Scotland constituency of East Lothian, has been the cornerstone of Scotland’s energy supply for more than 35 years, producing clean, reliable electricity for millions of homes and generating more than 1,200MW of power. More importantly, it provides strong union-supported jobs with a good employer.
Torness employs 700 people on site, and nearly 2,000 further jobs are supported through the supply chain. That means that 700 families rely on the wages of 700 workers whose expertise is keeping Scotland’s lights on. Each worker has a gross value added of more than £102,000, while the average gross value added for workers in Scotland is just £53,000. Torness has contributed more than £16 billion to the UK. When we talk about nuclear power, we are talking about those real livelihoods, real people and real communities.
Last December, EDF announced that it would extend to 2030 the lifespan of Torness. That was the right decision because it protects jobs, keeps bills lower and avoids shutting down a major source of clean energy. However, what happens after 2030?
Can Martin Whitfield answer the question about the costs of decommissioning nuclear stations? Although the work is welcome at Dounreay, I understand—at least from the internet—that it was announced last month that the clean-up operation will continue until the 2070s, which is 40 years later than the previous date. The cost of the programme, which was previously £2.9 billion, will now be £7.9 billion. Surely that must be taken into account when considering what forms of generation to invest in.
I am grateful for that intervention, because it allows me to deal with the question of nuclear waste, which has arisen in a number of contributions.
To put it into some context, there are two parts to the waste. There is the high-level, highly contaminated waste, which amounts to about 3 per cent and is approximately the size of a dishwasher tablet for every person in the UK. We could talk about the 15 million radioactive material packages that are transported annually worldwide, but have never resulted in one harmful incident. That is thanks to the robust packaging and strict safety standards that the industry adheres to at every level, and to the cost of the nuclear waste management.
Nuclear power is, of course, the only power generation where the cost at the end of production is already factored into the price. The cost of nuclear waste management is well understood and accounts for about 10 per cent of the total costs of generating nuclear power, which ensures its economic feasibility. However, there is no provision in the strike price of wind turbines for what we do at the end of their life after 20 or 30 years.
I am conscious of time, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I would have liked the opportunity to talk about small modular reactors, which have been raised a number of times today and have a huge potential to benefit Scotland.
We require a mix of our energy production if we are to ensure that the bills are kept low and that we have security with regard to what is happening in the world. If nuclear power is not part of that solution, the SNP Government will owe a great debt in the future when the lights go out.
16:53
During the course of the debate so far, there have been points of division about whether nuclear should be part of our future energy mix, but there are clearly points of agreement, in particular around the value of renewables to our economy and the desire to ensure that we maximise that economic benefit for Scotland as a whole.
Just last week, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit published a report that highlighted the value of the renewable energy sector to Scotland, which is increasing year on year. The renewable energy sector is critical to us in supporting the delivery of a just transition as we decarbonise our energy system.
That just transition is dependent on us being able to deliver not just the projects that are renewable, but the technology that goes alongside them—turbines, nacelles, blades and towers—all of which go into the mix and which we need to start manufacturing in Scotland if we are to deliver a just transition.
In order for those projects to become a reality and get to the point when a financial investment decision can be made, they require assurance around being able to connect to the national grid.
Although there has been investment in renewable projects over the past decade-plus, there has not been the level of investment that has been needed in our grid infrastructure to meet the ever-increasing demand. The decisions that were made by the previous Conservative Government to increase our dependency on renewables—offshore renewables in particular—have resulted in a need to significantly increase the capacity in our grid infrastructure. Although we all want renewables to be successful and for them to be a growing part of our economy, the reality is that grid investment needs to take place in order to achieve that.
I recognise the concerns and issues that communities have about some of that investment and those projects as they move forward. It is important that we ensure that our distribution network operators are held to account and pressed to ensure that they minimise the potential impact that they will have on communities where that can reasonably be done.
Part of the solution to the megapylons that are going through areas such as the Borders and that are greatly unpopular with lots of communities would be to look at the national planning framework 4 to give communities a greater say. Does the member agree with doing that?
We should always try to make sure that we use the system as best we can. However, using terms such as “megapylons” does not help the reality of what we are trying to deal with, which is to make sure that we have the right grid infrastructure in place. For example, in my constituency, new pylon networks are being introduced, and I recently met with SP Energy Networks to discuss that. There will be concerns about these issues, but we have to decarbonise our energy system as a result of decisions that were made by the previous Conservative Government and that will have to be delivered. We have to try to make sure that we address those issues as well.
I respect those who are pro a greater use of nuclear power in our energy mix and who are in favour of SMRs, but we need to be cautious and recognise that SMRs are an unproven technology. They have not even yet completed the generic design assessment process in the UK. At this point, there are no SMRs in the world that are operating commercially. We also have to recognise that, once they get regulatory approval, it will take some time for them to be delivered. It is highly unlikely that they will play a significant part in our future energy mix this side of the next 15 years.
On that point, I turn to a technology that has served us well for many decades, which is pumped storage hydro. When the late Tom Johnston was Secretary of State for Scotland, he created the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for two purposes. The first was to bring electricity to the Highlands and the second was for the betterment of the Highlands. Thankfully, the Highlands have electricity these days.
Unfortunately, when I was the Scottish energy secretary, the energy secretary in England, Kwasi Kwarteng, was not persuaded by my argument that we should put a cap-and-floor model in place in order to have a new age of pumped storage in Scotland. His argument was that this is a Scottish issue and it was not one that the UK Government was interested in at that point.
However, we are now at the point of a new age of pumped storage in Scotland. Last week in the Parliament, I had the opportunity to chair an event for the British Hydropower Association, at which there was real enthusiasm about the new cap-and-floor model that is being brought in by Ofgem for long-duration energy storage to unlock what could be nine megaprojects in Scotland. Those projects would deliver more than 5GW of additional capacity and more than 200 gigawatt hours of energy would be produced from those new hydro projects.
Will the member give way?
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is concluding.
All of that would play an important part in making sure that we have the mix in our energy system that we require and that, at the same time, we receive the economic benefits that come from those projects.
I hope that, as we go forward, we will not only start to focus on the new technologies but also recognise that some of the long-standing, reliable technologies such as pumped storage hydro can play a large part in Scotland’s future energy mix in the years ahead.
We move to closing speeches.
16:59
We have heard some well-reasoned, thoughtful and well-informed speeches; we have heard some bluster as well. In particular, some of the SMR boosterism has been a little bit overblown and silly. In their speeches, some members were pretty much saying, “SMRs are just lovely. SMRs are modern. SMRs are just wonderful, and they’ll solve every problem.” I was pleased that Michael Matheson tried to burst that bubble. At one point, I almost thought that I was hearing Sir Humphrey Appleby telling his minister, “SMRs are quite simply the nuclear power station Harrods would sell you.” We should attach to some of those speeches the same kind of absurdity that we would to those performances.
SMRs have not been proven anywhere in the world. In fact, I draw members’ attention to the comments of the Environmental Audit Committee at the UK Parliament, which wrote last year to the outgoing UK Government expressing doubts on SMRs. When referring to whichever reactor wins the UK design competition, it said:
“It seems unlikely that the reactor will be contributing generating capacity to the grid until 2035, which is the date by when the Government expects the GB electricity grid to have been decarbonised.”
The new UK Government wants to decarbonise the grid by 2030. SMRs will play no role in doing that, even if somebody somewhere in the world cracks the many challenges in making them viable.
I want to talk a little bit about how this debate links to the previous statement on the geopolitical changes that we are seeing around the world. There is a profound link to energy policy, and there is a good reason why many of my colleagues in the European Green Party have used slogans such as “More wind, less war” and “Less power from gas, less power for Putin.”
The way in which we move away from fossil fuels, which have been used as a geopolitical weapon by global bullies for decades—even for generations—needs to be accelerated. Some people say that nuclear power can be part of the shift away from fossil fuels, but nuclear power is still based on and would still bake in the reliance on a fixed, finite commodity—high-grade uranium ore—and whoever ends up possessing that commodity. If the world was to commit to a transition away from fossil fuels that was fundamentally based on nuclear power, we would simply be redesigning that same dynamic but with a different commodity—not fossil fuels, but high-grade uranium ore—and future generations would come to curse our name for having made that mistake.
Various members have talked about fairness in that transition. I spoke in particular about fairness in terms of cost, contrasting the low, low cost of production of clean, green, renewable electricity with the high cost of consumption. That fundamental injustice needs to be changed. I wish to goodness that we could change that here in Scotland. In its review of pricing, the UK Government must be put under pressure to break the link between fossil fuel prices and electricity prices, so that people are given a real incentive for people to shift away from fossil fuels for their heat and their transport.
The member will be as familiar as I am with the Queens Quay district heat network. The scaling of that Glasgow-built technology has been undermined because of the addiction to gas pricing, which is driving electricity costs, which in turn makes it uncompetitive relative to gas for heating.
Yes, indeed. Up until recently, there has been a complete lack of consumer protection in heat networks, and that needs to be fixed. We have been learning lessons from countries such as Denmark on how to do heat networks well, and we need to continue to do so.
Some people have posited the issue of fairness purely in terms of the favourability of particular types of energy infrastructure. Do people want a pylon built? Do people want wind turbines? Do people want this infrastructure or that infrastructure? I would make the case that all energy infrastructure brings controversy with it. When I was first elected, Scotland was still burning coal to generate electricity, communities not so far away from where I live were blighted with open-cast coal extraction, and businesses had an abysmal track record in protecting communities from environmental harm, seeking constantly to expand that open-cast coal extraction.
With regard to the infrastructure, every solution—every choice that we might make about what energy system we should build—will bring controversy with it.
However, I am looking at the moment at recent polling by YouGov on public support for the UK getting more energy from different types of sources. The overwhelming support is for tidal, solar, offshore wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and onshore wind, and there is fairly strong support for biofuels. The public view was fairly mixed and balanced on nuclear, and the public view on fossil fuel was strongly opposed. I think that we need to recognise that aspect.
There is not time to address everything that I would like to have said. However, I will say that, notwithstanding some of the anti-net zero comments that we have heard today, which would have been more at home at a conference of the Heartland Institute or the Reform Party—perhaps one or two members have decided to jump ship early—there is a question around just transition. Just transition needs to be more than a phrase, and it will not be if we leave the political and economic power with the corporates, the billionaires and the shareholders and investors, who will only ever serve their own short-term interests. Governments need to make a just transition happen. That has not been happening so far.
Whether the issue is Grangemouth, the North Sea industries, or oil and gas companies slashing their already meagre renewables investment, or every household in the country worried about its energy bills and wanting to shift away from fossil fuels affordably, the market will not deliver—Government must.
17:06
I am glad to add my voice to those who welcome the fact that the Scottish Government is engaging on the nuclear agenda, and that that is happening following so closely after the announcements at the Scottish Labour Party conference. Anas Sarwar has thrown down the gauntlet to the Government to deal in reality and seize the energy and industrial opportunity that is in front of us, as a country.
Unfortunately, the SNP is, so far, doubling down on its long-standing opposition to nuclear energy. From the discussion today, it strikes me that that case is somewhat retrofitted in opposition to the current reality. What began many decades ago, because of a perceived relationship to nuclear military power and the role of the British state that the SNP contested, has morphed as that link became less credible.
I contrast that approach with that scion of environmentalism, James Lovelock, and with the campaigning journalist George Monbiot, who, when the facts changed, changed their minds. The facts changed because of the evidence that was gathered on the urgency of addressing climate change. That is why they converted to believing that nuclear power is the right thing to do.
In his first speech, Patrick Harvie set out a picture of a distributed system with reduced demand. That might be a laudable aspiration but, unfortunately, it bears no resemblance to the reality of the situation that is in front of us. Instead, we have a Government with no energy strategy and no plan to deliver an effective transition. It also does not deal at all with the predicted vast increase in electricity demand across the UK and Scotland.
All the facts tell us that a sustainable energy mix must be delivered. Too often, ministers of the Government have been caught out using statistics to claim effective energy independence, and have had to correct the record after the event, given the very welcome growth in renewable sources.
However, the reality is that an interconnected UK and European energy market relies on consumption markets, bill subsidies and Government price guarantees on a huge scale. It also relies on a base-load that is predictable; we have heard a lot about base-load today. At the heart of our base-load in Scotland is nuclear energy—it is a key part of our energy mix.
The SNP Government has been very happy, time and again over its 18 years in government, to extend the lifespan of existing nuclear power sites. If the same sites are used, if safety standards are maintained—the Government must be satisfied about that if we are to continue them—and if the technology continues to improve, why turn our faces against an energy source that is so integral to the mix?
Gillian Martin rose—
I would like to continue for the moment.
We would also be turning our backs on the jobs and the wages from domestic generation. I am thinking of John McGlinchey from Dundee, who goes to Tannadice on Saturday, the Hawkhill Tavern on Sunday, then gets the train on Monday to go to England to work as a highly skilled welder in nuclear power stations. Times that by thousands. Wages and economic activity are lost to Scotland, while we are all set to import nuclear energy for decades to come, as Paul Sweeney so ably set out.
Martin Whitfield paid great tribute to the workers in East Lothian at Torness, who have made a substantial contribution to our economy. The question has been asked, “Where would those nuclear power stations be?” Frankly, I know that Torness is keen to have one.
In contrast, nobody sensible is dismissing the renewable future potential, which brings me to Douglas Lumsden, and the Conservatives’ increasing rejection of reality. The plans that Mr Lumsden now vocally opposes were laid out by the Conservative Government, as Michael Matheson set out in a very fine speech.
Will the member give way?
I will not, at the moment.
What Mr Matheson neglected to say, however, was that that was done in partnership with the SNP Government. Those plans are the cornerstone of what stands for an industrial policy from the SNP Government. On both sides, those parties need the political bravery to defend their record or to defend the projects as they stand at the moment.
Does Mr Marra not recognise that the Conservatives in this chamber have historically had an objection to mandating community benefits and the types of consultation that the new UK Government and the Scottish Government are now doing to improve the system? The Conservatives denied that: the Conservatives did not want it.
That is a very fair point, but I reiterate that it is incumbent on the cabinet secretary’s Government to stand behind those projects more fully, because the infrastructure projects that are being set out are controversial. Mr Matheson talked very clearly about that. The case for infrastructure will be won only through economic benefit. It has been pointed out that money for scout huts is not sufficient—there have to be jobs for the next generation.
Will the member take an intervention?
No thank you, sir.
Frankly, the failure to grow the supply chain in Scotland results from planning delays. As Sarah Boyack pointed out, the Berwick Bank project has been on ministers’ desks for two years.
Will the member take an intervention?
No thank you, sir. If I can continue—
You mentioned his name.
Mr Kerr.
A ScotWind auction generated fees in 2022, which were in the budgets in 2022-23 and 2023-24. Those fees were raided to plug the gaps in an incompetent emergency budget and, the following year, were used as a second reserve. Nothing was ever done to invest the money in employment. This very morning, the Minister for Public Finance was unable to tell the Finance and Public Administration Committee what the projected £350 million of funds for this year will actually be spent on. That is very far from being shovel ready.
For the first time in 14 years, we have a UK Government that is facing up to the climate crisis and taking meaningful action to address it through clean power by 2030, the creation of GB Energy and consenting reforms to speed up renewables projects. Last month, the Prime Minister announced plans for a historic expansion in nuclear power, which will enable small modular reactors to be built at sites across England and Wales. With UK electricity consumption set to double by 2040, the UK Labour Government is facing up to reality and planning for the future.
In recent days, Ed Miliband has written to Anas Sarwar, saying:
“in the event Scotland changed its policy on new nuclear, we”—
that is, the UK Government—
“would seek to work with the Scottish Government to make new nuclear happen with all the benefits for low carbon generation and jobs that it could provide.”
That is the opportunity that could be seized, and that is the new direction that Scotland needs.
17:13
I welcome the opportunity to debate renewables. I will focus my remarks on how we deliver our low-carbon future, what it means for households and the effect that it will have on their bills, but I will start with a broader point about nuclear energy.
I find the nuclear power section of the motion slightly bizarre and lacking an evidence-based approach. Sarah Boyack described it as “negative” and “a retrograde motion”. She also made the case for a robust mix of low-carbon energy that serves us well in all conditions. I associate myself with those remarks.
Let us be clear that nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source. According to the United Nations, it has the lowest carbon footprint of any energy source, when we factor in construction and decommissioning. By all means, let us ensure that wind, solar, hydro and other renewables are the driving force in the energy transition. I would echo Gillian Martin’s comments regarding Scotland’s potential in that area.
I would like to point out to you, Presiding Officer, that it is indeed fake news to say that I or the Scottish Conservatives are against community benefit. In fact, in 2017, I announced a policy to expand community benefit.
It is possible that I did not make myself entirely clear. I was not saying that the Scottish Conservatives are against community benefits; I was saying that I had asked the previous UK Government to explore mandating community benefits and engagement, but was told no.
I have not been in government, and I am not responsible or accountable for anyone who has been in government. Therefore, there is no point in Gillian Martin saying, “Somebody over there said something”, referencing people in the chamber. We can be responsible only for what we ourselves say and do, and it is fake news to suggest otherwise.
I agree with some of Patrick Harvie’s points. He said that we waste too much energy and that energy efficiency in our buildings must be improved, which I agree with.
Alex Cole-Hamilton made the point that Scotland should be leading the world in clean energy. He has a vision of Scotland as a renewables powerhouse, and I associate myself with his remarks.
We also need energy sources that are capable of generating energy 24/7 in order to maintain grid stability and avoid brown or black starts. We have already seen that a reliance on foreign gas imports can lead to huge energy bill spikes, not to mention its having implications for energy security. Building over capacity brings extra balancing, storage and transmission costs, which are all measures that risk increasing the price that people pay for their energy.
Given that the Conservatives accept that, even if the new SMRs are capable of working—many members argue that that is not the case—it would take seven years to build them, according to Stephen Kerr, and perhaps three years to build a gas power station, and 85 per cent of the 30 million homes in Britain are fuelled by gas, should we not go for gas rather than nuclear? Would that not provide the backup and base-load that are required?
Fergus Ewing has made a valid point. In the long term, we have to transition away from carbon-based fuels, however, which includes gas.
On transmission infrastructure, Douglas Lumsden highlighted the case that has been made by communities who are asking to be listened to by the Scottish Government. As well as being set out in the Nolan principles, that is also a requirement under the Aarhus convention of 1998. However, as Graham Simpson pointed out, there can be no transition without transmission, so a balance has to be struck.
We know that the SNP has a long-standing policy of arguing for Scottish households to pay more for their energy bills. For example, it has called for standing charges to be scrapped, but those charges help to pay for network costs. If we scrap them, higher unit costs would almost certainly make up the shortfall. In other words, those who use the most energy, such as households in rural areas such as the north of Scotland and those who rely on medical equipment, would pay more, although second-home owners would benefit significantly.
The SNP position for a floor approach to the forward-looking transmission demand residual charge would, according to the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, increase current charges, particularly for customers in the north of Scotland. Although many members have mentioned transmission network use of system charges, which is the current transmission charging regime, everyone should note that, although Scottish generators pay more, Scottish consumers pay less. If anyone is arguing for generators to pay less, the quid pro quo is that consumers in Scotland will pay more.
I have concerns about Ofgem’s decision to back the zonal pricing model. Although it is theoretically sound, splitting the country up into different pricing zones risks investment by creating unstable market conditions. We have to create a friendly environment for business, innovation and investment, which this Government struggles to cope with doing, whether it be around anaerobic digestion or heat-pump installations—which, unfortunately, I do not have enough time to go into.
Will the member give way?
Mr Golden is concluding.
If we are to make progress on a just transition as a whole, the SNP needs to step up. Speaking for me and my colleagues in the chamber, I can assure the Scottish Government that we will be there to support it in that regard.
17:20
I thank members for, in many cases, their insightful contributions to this important debate. However, among the advocates of nuclear power, there was a notable shyness about volunteering communities in their own constituencies that would host not only—
Will the minister take an intervention?
Will the minister give way?
I ask members to let me finish.
Those communities would have to host not only nuclear power stations but nuclear waste repositories—members were even shyer about that issue.
I mention that because the debate, which is timely, gives us the opportunity to talk about the significant changes in global and UK energy markets, as well as UK-wide policy developments and court decisions that have had a direct impact on Scotland’s energy sector. All those issues bring a renewed focus on the importance of renewable energy generation, our progress towards net zero and Scotland’s future energy sector, as many members have mentioned.
I will not be able to do justice to the many members who made contributions, but there were at least some points of consensus. For instance, Alex Cole-Hamilton pointed out the need to speed up the pace of grid connections in order to obviate constraint payments and allow renewables to flourish, and Audrey Nicoll mentioned the need for transmission charge reform.
Does the Scottish Government have a view on zonal pricing? Is it in favour of that?
Zonal pricing has to be done in a way that is right and fair. It was interesting that some of the contributions towards the end of the debate acknowledged the unfair nature of the status quo when it comes to transmission charges and many related issues, and we are having that conversation with the UK Government.
If I heard him rightly—forgive me if I did not—Paul Sweeney asked a question about small modular reactors at Grangemouth. I understand that, in 2022, Ineos confirmed that such reactors did not form part of its net zero road map for Grangemouth.
As I said, I cannot refer to everyone who spoke in the debate. However, as the cabinet secretary made clear, the Scottish Government unapologetically rejects new nuclear power plants in Scotland because of the risks and costs related to their development—
You are anti-science.
Will the minister give way?
I am not anti-science, but I will give way to someone sensible.
Is not the point that the minister has just made precisely why Ineos decided not to invest in SMR development at Grangemouth and, similarly, why Rolls-Royce ruled out Scotland as a location for the heavy-pressure vessel manufacturing facility that it had planned for SMRs?
Perhaps Mr Sweeney knows more about the reasons than I do, but my understanding is that Rolls-Royce ruled out similar developments at Grangemouth.
The carbon neutrality or otherwise of nuclear power generation has been alluded to a number of times. I accept that nuclear power generation is not a carbon-intensive process, but it creates toxic and life-threatening waste. At one point in the debate, rather charmingly, the waste was compared with dishwasher tablets, but it is a little more toxic than that.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, thank you.
The toxic and life-threatening waste that is created requires complex and robust management to ensure the protection of people and the environment. That—coupled with the enduring risk of nuclear accidents, as recent history shows—means that we cannot simply ignore the dangers of producing and managing hazardous radioactive waste products.
The Scottish Government also remains unconvinced of the economic argument for new nuclear. In 2015, the International Energy Agency published research that suggested that new nuclear power in the UK would be more expensive than it would be in any other country, yet the UK Government has continued to commit huge sums of public money to nuclear energy. As we have heard, when accounting for inflation, Hinkley Point C is over budget by £28 billion, and it is running at least six years late. Just to put that into some kind of perspective, £28 billion is equivalent to Scotland’s entire health budget for the year, and then half as much as that again.
Despite those delays and cost overruns, the UK Government and its allies in quarters of this chamber continue to stake taxpayer money on that nuclear gamble. To be absolutely clear, it is the Scottish Government’s view that the UK Government should instead focus on increasing the deployment of renewables.
At the beginning of the debate, the cabinet secretary set out—
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will.
I appreciate the minister giving way. He says that his focus is on renewables, but we have no idea how much renewables generation rural Scotland is supposed to take on. Galloway is already over capacity for wind turbines and there is no clear indication of when it will stop. We have a local authority that is inundated with applications for wind farms, upgraded power lines, biodiversity and ecosystems services and solar, and the Government is overturning the views of local people and the independent reporters. Will you agree to a moratorium in Dumfries and Galloway until the Government gets its act together and tells us what its plans for renewable energy are?
Always speak through the chair, please, Mr Carson.
I cannot agree with a lot of what the member has just said, but I can agree with him on the importance of making sure that we bring communities with us and on the issue of having targets around the growth of renewables in Scotland and the role that a range of technologies are playing in our journey to net zero.
The renewable energy generated in 2023 was equivalent to what would be needed to power all households in Scotland for five and a half years. Under this Government, 70 per cent of the electricity that was generated in Scotland in 2023 was from renewable sources, which is a marked increase on 32 per cent in 2013.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I must make progress—time is running out, I am afraid.
Those figures illustrate that our policy position of no to nuclear and yes to renewables is bearing fruit and delivering clean energy for Scotland.
The findings of a Fraser of Allander Institute report that was published in December 2023 show a thriving renewable energy sector in Scotland that generated in excess of £10 billion of output in 2021 and supports more than 42,000 jobs. Further independent analysis from Ernst & Young shows that low-carbon and renewable energy could support almost 80,000 jobs in Scotland by 2050. Those reports highlight that we are seizing the economic opportunities of the energy transition.
As I said to Finlay Carson, we need to bring people with us, and we are alive to that. That point was also made by Emma Harper and Fergus Ewing in different ways at different points in the debate. However, as we have heard, in the past 12 months, more than £30 million of benefits have been offered to Scottish communities. We will continue to work with the renewables sector and the UK Government to ensure that communities feel the maximum benefit from the transition.
Will the minister give way?
The minister must conclude.
I am afraid that I am going to have to close.
We know that Scotland needs to deliver cleaner, greener energy, not new nuclear. The deployment of renewables provides Scotland with the best pathway to net zero by 2045, creating a climate-friendly energy system that delivers affordable, resilient and clean energy supplies for communities, businesses and consumers.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In today’s debate, the minister said once again that Scottish ministers could not meet campaign groups because that would be a breach of the ministerial code. Chapter 5 of the ministerial code lays out that ministers can have such meetings but not pass comment or give a personal view. Also, if they are meeting one side, they should meet both sides. Has there been any approach to change the Official Report to show that ministers can meet campaign groups?
The ministerial code is not a matter for me, and therefore not a matter on which I will be ruling from the chair.
Air ais
UkraineAir adhart
Parliamentary Bureau Motion