Chamber and committees

A schoolboy error, Presiding Officer.

The Government’s commitment to reaching net zero by 2045 is absolutely unwavering. We are continuing to develop and take forward climate policies ahead of the Climate Change Committee’s advice on new carbon budget levels, which is due this May. Once we have received that advice, we will bring forward the carbon emission targets via secondary legislation, which will set a deliverable course towards net zero, with the aim of publishing a draft climate change plan to achieve those targets in the autumn.

The Government’s commitment—[Interruption.]

The report will be published in due course. However, the member will be aware that the two Governments have been working closely together to strain every sinew to ensure that, in both the long term and the immediate term, intervention is there to support the workforce and businesses at Grangemouth. Hydrogen is part of that. Decisions about carbon capture that are taken at the UK level and the work that we are doing in the Grangemouth community are also clearly part of that.

Mercedes Villalba has raised interesting and important points on those issues. One of the things that the Scottish Government is seeking to do is to open a conversation with the UK Government about mandating community benefits. That is a reserved issue, but I hope that we can have a fruitful conversation on it. The Scottish Government is supportive of all communities that seek, in various ways, to ensure that they get community benefit from projects in their areas.

It is true to say that the establishment of a robust regulatory framework is key to the deployment of hydrogen as an important part of our future energy mix. With that in mind, we continue to urge the UK Government to accelerate its consideration of the regulations that are required to enable the development of hydrogen infrastructure and the establishment of business models that would support hydrogen transport and storage, in order to provide clarity and confidence to developers who are investing in driving forward hydrogen production projects in Scotland.

I would also urge the UK Government to set out the timeframe for an accelerated decision on hydrogen blending in the gas grid.

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?

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—

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—

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—