Chamber and committees

Thank you.

If we look at pay deals, which are covered from paragraph 38 onwards of the Auditor General’s report and in exhibit 5, we see that some of them are frankly unsustainable. How will you be able to fund those in future years?

What kinds of bids are coming in?

Okay. The Auditor General told us a bit more about how the Welsh Government undertakes forecasting and reporting at the evidence session that we had in December, and we were told that it

“published a strategic integrated impact assessment that looked at the impact that reductions in spending might have on different groups.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 5 December 2024; c 7.]

Is that something that you are looking to copy or adapt in some way?

It might be the right objective, but the point that the report makes is that hitting that objective will take a lot more money than is likely to be there. That is the nub of it, is it not?

To bring all that together, if we accept that there are funding gaps—for social security, the figure is not too distant from being a very big funding gap, and we have spoken about pay deals—and if the Scottish Government is to make such policy choices, which I accept are not yours but those of ministers, it will have to look at making savings or cuts in other areas, will it not?

In debates such as this, we often get bogged down in arguments about oil and gas versus renewables, net zero versus no net zero and, as is the case with the Government motion, nuclear versus renewables, but it is not as simple as that. The truth is that there is more common ground than people—even Mr Lumsden—would like to let on that there is. This could have been a positive debate about renewables, because there is a good story to tell on that. Instead, it is a dial-the-clock-back-50-years debate against nuclear, so let me tackle that one first.

The SNP Government’s view—we have known about it for years, so we do not need a debate about it—is that Scotland should not build new nuclear because the electricity that is produced is expensive. However, that does not consider the cost of intermittency—the wind not always blowing—or of transmission. Scotland has the most expensive transmission network in the UK, because lots of wind power is generated in rural areas, very far from where it is needed. Stable, predictable and geographically concentrated nuclear is much more straightforward to transmit. Wind energy is available only 45 per cent of the time, and it requires back-up from gas. Nuclear is available 90 per cent of the time and is therefore more reliable.

Germany, Austria and Belgium have seen their carbon emissions rise after the decommissioning of nuclear plants. The advice from the National Energy System Operator—NESO—to the UK Government on how Great Britain can achieve green power by 2030 included contracting more offshore wind capacity, increasing battery capacity, the delivery of carbon capture and nuclear power. The Climate Change Committee has previously suggested a target of 10GW of nuclear by 2025.

I do not often agree with Keir Starmer, but he was right when he said:

“This country hasn’t built a nuclear power station in decades. We’ve been let down, and left behind.

Our energy security has been hostage to Putin for too long, with British prices skyrocketing at his whims.

I’m putting an end to it—changing the rules to back the builders of this nation, and saying no to the blockers who have strangled our chances of cheaper energy, growth and jobs for far too long.”

Hostage to Putin—is that what we really want?

I mentioned Germany, which is a great example of why countries should not phase out nuclear. Germany now burns more coal than anyone else in Europe in order to cover its electricity needs when the wind and sun are down. German industrial and domestic electricity prices are some of the very highest in the European Union—they are about 30 to 50 per cent higher than prices in France, which gets 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear. German industrial competitiveness is suffering from persistent high electricity prices, which have been caused by the nuclear phase-out. The motion that is being debated is an example of why we need a change of Government in Scotland.

Let me turn to renewables, because that is an area in which there is some positivity.

Nuclear power stations are—if the minister stops interrupting from a sedentary position, I will get the answer out—mostly by the coast. Central Scotland, minister? Think about it.

The recent report from the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit and Confederation of British Industry economics showed that Scotland has had the UK’s highest growth in economic activity from net zero businesses since 2022, and the green sector has grown at breakneck speed—by a fifth. Renewables make up 4.9 per cent of the Scottish economy, generating £9.1 billion in gross value added for Scotland. Over the same period, total employment supported by the net zero economy in Scotland has grown by 19.5 per cent, which is equivalent to 16,500 full-time jobs.

I am worried about Mr Lumsden’s blood pressure on many occasions, but today, he was certainly right when he posed the question whether we should put all our eggs in one basket. The answer to that must be no. Energy security and getting bills down have to be a priority. The oil and gas sector supports 83,700 jobs, so we cannot just shut it down. Everyone in the chamber wants Grangemouth—which is in my region—to survive, but they should reflect on their relentlessly negative stance towards what it produces.

If we accept that we need more electricity, we have to get it from A to B. There can be no transition without transmission. Scotland will be a key part of that journey, with billions of pounds invested and the potential to unlock wider economic growth. However, that must be done with community involvement.

Yes.

I am just finishing. The Government’s bizarre motion should be rejected. We need a mix of electricity supply, and Scotland should play its part in that.