Chamber and committees

With regard to energy security, it is much better that the provision be built in this country. Yes, the costs for Hinkley Point have increased, but so has the cost of all our energy, including wind—the costs have shifted considerably in the contracts for difference allocation round 6 process.

In the short time that I have left, I will address some of those points further and set out the case for nuclear in relation to energy security, green credentials and economic viability. The war in Ukraine has revealed an overreliance on Russian oil and gas in many European states. Countries without a base load of nuclear power, such as Germany, have found themselves in economic hardship as a result of the fact that they do not produce enough power domestically, and they have even turned to coal. We must ensure that we, in Scotland, do not fall into the same trap and that we provide energy domestically rather than importing it from other countries.

Although nobody could deny that we have good wind generation in Scotland, it is weather dependent and does not provide the base load that is required for our communities day to day. At present, onshore wind provides 10.8 per cent of our UK energy mix, whereas nuclear provides 14.7 per cent. Wind is unreliable and provision depends on the ability to transport the energy from the turbines to where it is needed. In order to ensure grid stability and security, we require a form of energy that can supply a reliable base load 24/7, which nuclear does. It complements renewable generation, but it is required to supply that base load in the system.

By utilising nuclear energy, we were able to cut gas imports by 9 billion cubic metres in 2022, thereby reducing our exposure to international gas markets. Nuclear makes sense for energy security and is the only answer to ensuring that we can meet our base-load requirements in a non-carbon way. Nuclear is a green form of energy. According to the UN, it has the lowest life cycle of carbon intensity, the lowest land use and impact on ecosystems, and the lowest mineral and metal use. In addition, it is the only form of energy that is required to track, manage and make safe its own waste, and it does so very successfully and safely. As I should have mentioned, the price of that is built into the initial cost.

Nuclear energy is heavily regulated, has extremely high safety standards and is well respected in the energy sector. To go against that is simply hyperbole, made up by the Green wine-bar elites who prefer to use pseudoscience, rather than the real science, to back up their claims.

Torness nuclear power station has the capacity to power 2.2 million homes from one tenth of a square mile of land; that is rather different from the capacity of our onshore and offshore wind farms. Soon, however, Torness, like Hunterston before it, will be turned off, and with it will go the future of many of our young workers, who have not had the opportunity to work in the nuclear industry—unless, of course, they up sticks and move down south, where the Government does not have a blinkered view of the world.

That brings me to something that I remember from the nuclear industry reception that my colleague Liam Kerr hosted a couple of months back. A young apprentice—I cannot remember his name—gave an inspirational speech on his career with EDF, but he was looking to move away from Scotland to continue his career. The highly skilled and bright workforce of the future is being lost to Scotland.

Nuclear energy is produced where it is needed, rather than in our precious rural countryside. On Friday, I will attend a meeting of a local community council that is very worried about the impact on the local community of the pylons and substations that are built to transport the energy from wind farms to where it is needed in the central belt.

Will the minister take an intervention?

Will the minister take an intervention?

I thank the members who signed my motion to allow us to debate the topic tonight. The purpose of the debate is simple: to bring Scotland into line with the majority of countries in Europe and the rest of the western world in recognising that nuclear power is a key component of modern, zero-carbon and sustainable energy provision.

At present, Scotland’s anti-science Scottish National Party Government has shut the door to considering that green, sustainable and reliable form of energy. We are losing out to our European and Scandinavian partners, and we are at risk of becoming overreliant on fossil fuels to supply our base energy levels. Quite simply, we are falling behind the rest of the world in an area in which we have the skills and the potential to be leaders.

Why is that? It is because the SNP so-called green Government refuses to accept the science behind the technology and, instead, listens to anti-science rhetoric on a vital component of the green energy jigsaw.

At COP28, the declaration to triple nuclear energy was signed by many countries that see and understand the potential of nuclear to provide clean sustainable energy as part of the move to net zero. The declaration understands

“the importance of the applications of nuclear science and technology”

to continue contributing

“to monitoring climate change and tackling its impacts”.

It emphasises

“the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency”

and recognises

“that nuclear ... is already the second-largest source of clean ... baseload power”.

The International Energy Agency has said that nuclear energy will more than double before 2050. In addition, the agency recognises that, by increasing nuclear, we will reach our net zero targets more quickly, and doing so will be less costly.

The declaration was signed by 22 countries, and it demonstrates international recognition of the importance of nuclear as part of the picture in our journey towards net zero.

Mr Whitfield is absolutely spot on: nuclear is part of the energy mix that is required to provide the energy security that we need. Indeed, many countries feel that the picture is incomplete without nuclear and that the jigsaw will have a gaping hole if nuclear is not included as a key part of providing for our energy needs in a carbon-free world.

Mr Hoy makes a very good point. I was expecting to see some Green members in the chamber, but obviously they do not want to make an argument against nuclear.

Does the minister accept that the UK’s largest pumped storage station, which is in Wales, can produce only the same amount of electricity as Torness does in 7.5 hours? Does she not recognise that that is completely inadequate?

Will the minister give way?

Would the member like the energy profits levy to be increased so that companies would pay more into the Treasury?

Is it still the Scottish National Party’s intention to create a state-owned utility company, and would that be able to address the charges that the member describes?