Chamber and committees

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.

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.

The member mentions safety. I merely ask whether she would be content to have a nuclear waste repository in her constituency.

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.

I will.

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.

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 member take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention?

I thank all the members who have contributed usefully to today’s debate, as well as Mr Lumsden. I recommend that Parliament votes to give consent to all clauses in the bill, including the new clause 7A. As I said earlier, I am very disappointed with the length of time that the Parliament has been given to consider the new amendments by the UK Government. I nonetheless believe that it is important that we look at ways to ensure that the opportunities that GB Energy can provide to Scotland are realised. I believe that the agreement to give consent to the LCM will help to support that effort.

Mr Rennie and others have expressed concerns about process and timings. I hear those concerns loud and clear and I share many of them. I reiterate to the UK Government the importance of our parliamentary process and the need to give the Scottish Parliament sufficient time to scrutinise legislation, including late-stage amendments. Given the fact that the bill requires the consent of this Parliament, it is crucial that members are given sufficient time to consider proposed changes. That process has at points not met that test, and I have made that point to the UK Government.

To pick up on Daniel Johnson’s very sensible question about why we could not have waited until later in the UK bill’s progress to deal with an LCM, I should perhaps clarify that LCMs have to be lodged within 14 days of a Government amendment being taken, which I hope explains our reasoning on that.

On Edward Mountain’s point about what has been happening since last summer on these issues, I make no apology at all for seeking assurances from the UK Government that would ensure that the interests of this Parliament would be assured in devolved areas when the bill becomes law.

By way of conclusion, despite the concerns that have rightly been expressed by members and the justified scepticism from Jackie Dunbar about the Labour Government’s election commitments, it is sensible for us to continue to work with partners, including GB Energy, the UK Government and our public bodies, to continue to grow the community energy sector.