Chamber and committees

—but I want to hear place names, and which parts of Scotland—[Interruption.]

I will take an intervention from Mr Hoy, because he is chuntering from the sidelines, as usual.

No male Opposition member took an intervention from any of the females on the SNP side of the chamber yesterday, so I will not give way to any male MSPs tonight. If we cannot intervene on the gentlemen, I will not take an intervention from the member.

I understand that, as things stand, nuclear costs £92.50 per megawatt hour, whereas offshore wind costs £37.65 per megawatt hour. The major driver of that higher price is the up-front costs of constructing the power stations. That ties into the Scottish Government’s position, whereby it supports extending the operating lifespan of Torness, provided that strict environmental and safety criteria continue to be met, but it does not support the building of new nuclear fission power stations in Scotland with current technologies.

That cost remains high—too high, I believe—despite significant investment by the UK Government. Meanwhile, greener renewable technologies are not getting anywhere near the same level of financial support. An example is pumped storage hydro, which the minister has spoken of previously. It is able to plug gaps in the intermittent supply that can result from other forms of renewable generation.

Douglas Lumsden and I, along with Audrey Nicoll, who is also in the chamber, have the great privilege of representing Aberdeen, which is—I will keep saying this—the future net zero capital of the world. Alongside our hugely skilled workforce, which I maintain is our biggest asset, we also have, across and around Scotland, an abundance of renewable energy sources.

The motion that we are discussing states that nuclear technologies

“can be located where they are needed”.

Before I finish, I pose an open question. In a Scotland that has as much potential to generate wind, wave, tidal and hydro energy as we have, where exactly do Conservative members think should be fully considered for hosting new nuclear plants in the future?

I know that the motion mentions industrial zones—

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a former councillor in Aberdeen City Council. As it is traditional to do so, I congratulate Douglas Lumsden on bringing the debate to the chamber.

His timing in lodging the motion ties in with what has happened not just in Dubai, on the global stage of COP28, but in our old stomping ground of Aberdeen City Council. On the same day that COP28 came to a close, Aberdeen City Council was due to discuss a petition calling for it to join Nuclear Free Local Authorities, whose members aim to

“tackle, in practical ways and within their powers, the problems caused by civil and military nuclear hazards.”

I understand from my former council colleagues that the petitioners, when they finally spoke to councillors earlier this month, gave a very impressive presentation, in which they spoke of how renewable energy generation is cheaper and does not leave future generations having to deal with the nuclear waste that is left behind.

During a cost of living crisis that has been driven, in part, by high energy prices, it is particularly important that we consider how much it costs to generate energy, especially if there is a risk that those costs will be passed on to consumers.

Recent reports that renewables technologies generated the equivalent of 113 per cent of Scotland’s overall electricity consumption in 2022 were welcome. How will the Government’s planned green industrial strategy bring about the investment that our renewables industry needs to build on that success and fully deliver our net zero ambitions?

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the net zero secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the role of the renewable energy sector in meeting its net zero ambitions. (S6O-03074)

Although I am pleased to be taking part in today’s debate, I will be even more pleased to see the day when the cost of living crisis and inequality are no longer an issue here in Scotland. However, at the moment, they are, and we are still trying to mitigate the situation.

Therefore, I am delighted to hear that the Scottish Government will invest a record £6.3 billion in social security in the year ahead. That money is an investment in the folk of Scotland, in our social contract with them and in the safety net that should be there to catch folks when times get tough. Right now, times are tough.

During the cost of living crisis, every single penny that we can put towards helping folk to get by is worth it. I am particularly pleased that, when folk interact with Social Security Scotland, they are treated with dignity, fairness and respect. That approach is a key part of why 90 per cent of people who had been in contact with Social Security Scotland said that their experience with staff was “good” or “very good” and 93 per cent felt that they were treated with kindness. I think that that approach stands in sharp contrast to what folk have experienced with the UK Government’s Department for Work and Pensions, especially since the UK Government first started to implement its welfare reforms.

The idea that social security needed to be reformed was not in itself a bad idea, but it was not simply reformed. Instead, billions of pounds of support was snatched from the very hands of folk who needed it most, right across the UK. Looking back, I remember the devastation of those who had been sanctioned and simply did not know where to turn to for help. I remember the fear of those who did not know how they would cope with the impending bedroom tax. I remember the trepidation of those who were asked to attend a work assessment, including those with lifelong or terminal conditions. I remember the implementation of the benefit cap, the child cap and the rape clause. I remember food banks becoming commonplace.

For a lot of folk, the early 2010s was when their cost of living crisis started. That was when they started to struggle to afford food and electricity. That was when they could no longer afford to socialise, play sports or enjoy certain hobbies, or to take part in a wide range of activities that give joy and meaning to life, because they cost money. In the past two years, most folk have cut back on such things or have simply gone without.

I am worried about how many folk are now struggling with their utility bills, their housing costs and their food bills, because those are the price rises that hit folk hardest. However, my even greater worry is for the people who have been struggling for a decade or so. The pressures that they face are not cost of living pressures. Heating, shelter and food are basic essentials. The challenge that they now face is with the cost of merely surviving. They face that situation because the UK Government did not see the value of social security and the safety net that it is supposed to offer in time of need. Today, I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government values that safety net and that Social Security Scotland is starting to repair it.

That this Parliament has the power to make some differences is a result of the independence referendum and the Smith commission that followed. If we look at the communities that have been hardest hit by the Tory welfare cuts, we see that they are the communities where support for Scottish independence was the highest. In my Aberdeen Donside constituency, that was certainly the case across Middlefield, Mastrick, Cummings Park, Northfield and Heathryfold. I know that we will have seen that in other communities right across this nation.

It is fair to say that, during that campaign, many of the folk who were struggling to get by saw the prospect of independence as a light at the end of the tunnel. Those of us in the yes campaign promised that things could be better with independence, with control over our own affairs. The independence campaign gave a lot of folk hope, and we saw how powerful that hope could be with the turnout that we saw on 18 September 2014.

The aftermath of the referendum saw the Smith commission and further devolution, and now this Parliament has some power over welfare. What has followed has been the establishment of Social Security Scotland. We are building a social security system that, even at this early stage, is offering support from the cradle to the grave, with best start grants, best start foods and the game-changing Scottish child payments there for the start of life, while funeral support payments are supporting families who are grieving the loss of a loved one at the end of life.

All of that has helped to bring about a situation in which 90,000 fewer children are growing up in poverty than might be otherwise. That is investing in Scotland’s future, and that is what we can do with just some control over our own affairs. There is more to do, but we are on the right path, and continued record investment in social security will help to make the fairer and more equal Scotland that we all want to see a reality.

You said that the Scottish Government has been critical of the way in which the UK Government’s Department for Work and Pensions has handled things. Are you critical of it, or do you think that what it has been doing for the past few years has been acceptable?

I notice that the natural resources budget has been reduced to £4.5 million this year. What impact will that have?

Okay, thank you. That is all I have just now, convener.