Chamber and committees

I am not anti-science, but I will give way to someone sensible.

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—

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.

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.

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?

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.