Chamber and committees

The member is right. Scottish ministers regularly engage with our counterparts in the UK Government to push for a decision on Acorn. Carbon capture is vital for achieving our climate targets—the Climate Change Committee described it as being a necessity, not an option, that we achieve net zero emissions. The Scottish cluster is essential not just to Scotland’s target of reaching net zero by 2045, but to the UK’s 2050 target.

So that progress and investor confidence can be maintained, we are pushing for the UK Government to make a clear and meaningful public announcement by return, and certainly ahead of June, confirming that the UK Government is committed to awarding track 2 status to the Acorn project and the Scottish cluster.

Hydrogen is key to our net zero journey. We remain committed to developing a world-leading green hydrogen sector in Scotland. Alongside our enterprise agencies, we are engaging closely with the sector to support hydrogen production and use. Over recent months, I have chaired the Scottish hydrogen industry forum. That group ensures that Government and industry, working together, can support growth and identify barriers to deployment.

Many levers that are required to develop the hydrogen economy are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. We will work closely with that Government to ensure that the interests of the Scottish hydrogen sector are recognised.

We are considering the responses to our consultation on proposals for a heat in buildings bill and will respond as soon as is practicable.

We also know that further action by the United Kingdom Government in reserved areas is essential for the heat transition. That includes rebalancing gas and electricity prices, clarity on its intentions for phasing out gas boilers in existing homes and a swift decision on the future role of the gas grid, in line with the Climate Change Committee’s recent advice.

As Brian Whittle identified in his question, the case is a live planning application. I am part of the planning process, so he will understand why I simply cannot comment on a live application. He is, of course, entitled to raise issues that are of concern to him and his community as part of that process, but I cannot prejudice matters by commenting on it. I am afraid that that is all that I can add.

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—

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.