Chamber and committees

For the member to stand up and say that baseload is an outdated concept is an extraordinary intervention. As I reminded him about three weeks ago, he does not seem to know what he is talking about when it comes to energy. He does not seem to realise that nuclear is operational 90 per cent of the time and is non-operational only when it is entirely planned.

I am grateful for the member’s intervention, because it allows me to put him straight yet again. He actually adds to the counterarguments that I will no doubt face from the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Energy.

In previous debates, I have had thrown at me, “What about safety?” Well, the UK has operated civil nuclear power stations for more than half a century without a major nuclear accident affecting the public.

On economics, Alan Brown asked me the other week about Hinkley Point C. In the latest contracts for difference allocation round, fixed-bottom offshore wind was priced at £95 per megawatt hour; that is around £125 per megawatt hour when back-up is factored in. Floating offshore wind comes in at £230 per megawatt hour. The current strike price for Hinkley C—the Scottish National Party’s bête noire—is £131 per megawatt hour.

Finally, on waste, nuclear power is unique in that its waste is fully identified, regulated, contained and managed. Carbon emissions are never released into the environment, while the radioactive waste is safely stored and monitored. The volume of that waste is remarkably small. In fact, I would be exposed to more radiation on my next flight to Ibiza than I would—[Laughter.] What? I would be exposed to more radiation on that flight than I would were I standing on top of the Torness reactors.

The choice facing Scotland is not between renewables, nuclear, and oil and gas; it is whether or not we want to be able to meet the huge demand that is coming down the track with a mature, evidence-based approach to all three.

My view is that Scotland should continue to lead in wind and other renewable technologies, and give full support to oil and gas, but we should not exclude a proven source of reliable, low-carbon electricity. Nuclear power supports our climate ambitions, strengthens our energy security and provides the firm power that is needed for future economic growth. Let us follow that evidence and pursue informed, long-term, strategic planning choices that recognise the importance of oil and gas, acknowledge the need for new nuclear baseload and strive for a future alongside, and in partnership with, renewables.

18:07

What the member has said is not true. As I said in my remarks, Hinkley Point C’s strike price is about £131 per megawatt hour, and the strike price for floating offshore wind is about £230, so the member has just misled the chamber.

In the years since I first contributed to a debate in this Parliament on new nuclear power in Scotland, four of the six parties in the chamber have come to support the proposition that I put forward, in some form or other. In that, they are on the side of the majority of the public, which supports nuclear power. Indeed, in Scotland, around 54 per cent of people support nuclear energy and only 29 per cent are opposed. Even among Scottish National Party voters, the majority now supports new nuclear in Scotland’s energy mix.

However, the SNP Government remains opposed, even though new nuclear is the critical piece of the jigsaw puzzle that would let the SNP achieve exactly what it wants. For years, the Scottish Government has sought to present itself—and, by extension, Scotland—as a leader in the fight against climate change. In 2019, it even legislated for a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, although it scrapped that target five years later because it could not meet it. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Scotland’s climate ambitions would be much closer to realisation today had ministers been willing to embrace every available low-carbon technology. However, they were not.

We have some of the best renewable energy sources in Europe, but we must be honest about the limitations of any energy source. Wind power depends on the weather. There are regular days when wind generates more electricity than we can use, which, along with the challenges of crossing the grid bottleneck, leads to hundreds of millions of pounds in constraint payments. There are also days when wind generation drops. In fact, over the year, wind turbines operate only around 25 to 40 per cent of the time.

The point is that we must be able to guarantee electricity when homes, businesses and hospitals need it. That means baseload: electricity that is there and can be called on anywhere, any time—on days such as today, for example, when the grid put out a capacity warning due to low wind and high heat. Yesterday, prices for gas back-up were nearly £1,000 per megawatt hour. Without Torness, they would have been between £1,500 and £2,000 per megawatt hour. That is why we need nuclear.

That is just the state of play at the moment. Most credible pathways project electricity demand in Scotland doubling or even tripling by 2050. No wonder: electric vehicles, heat pumps, hydrogen production, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence and high-tech industries all require enormous amounts of reliable power. That means nuclear.

However, we do not just need reliable power. We need local power. The events of recent years, particularly the war in Ukraine, have reminded us that energy policy is also national security policy. Countries that rely too heavily on imported stocks leave themselves exposed to international shocks and geopolitical instability. The United Kingdom currently requires around 900 tonnes of uranium a year, and the UK—I stress the UK—has about 110,000 tonnes stockpiled.

The environmental argument stacks up. A nuclear station can generate vast quantities of low-carbon electricity on a comparatively small site. Producing the same amount of electricity through ground-mounted solar—a technology that I stress I support and that must form part of our energy mix—requires many times more land.

Most of us would agree that reducing emissions matters. The climate does not care whether a unit of low-carbon electricity comes from a wind turbine or a nuclear reactor. On that measure, nuclear power performs exceptionally well. Life-cycle emissions are comparable to offshore wind.

Then there are the economic benefits. Nuclear supports around 18,500 jobs in Scotland. It directly employs more than 5,400 people, and around 30 per cent of those are in Scotland’s most deprived local authority areas. Nuclear contributed around £1.5 billion in gross value added to the Scottish economy in 2024.

The case for new nuclear in Scotland is absolutely compelling. Scotland cannot decarbonise its economy, strengthen its energy security, grow its industrial base and provide baseload while simultaneously ruling out one of the world’s most reliable sources of low-carbon electricity.

rose—

I am not Douglas Lumsden—perhaps regrettably—but I am very well informed about Hinkley Point C. The minister said earlier that there is a great cost to building it. He will presumably acknowledge that the entire construction cost of Hinkley Point C is being met by EDF Energy, and that not a penny of it is being met by the UK taxpayer.

I am very much enjoying David Green’s contribution. When I took an intervention earlier on decommissioning, which the member concerned was right to raise, it was clear that one of the things that the SNP was unaware of was that new nuclear power stations are required to fund their own decommissioning and waste management costs. I presume that David Green knows that, so perhaps he could advise the SNP.

Will the minister give way?

In contrast to the answer that we have just heard, according to the Robert Gordon University report that was released today, policies pursued by this Scottish National Party Government towards oil and gas could lead to

“loss of a skilled workforce, erosion of supply chain capacity and a weakening”

of the wider economy.

Removing the presumption against new oil and gas, supporting Jackdaw and Rosebank and having an energy strategy would help to change that, so will the cabinet secretary change course and adopt those measures, or will he throw 18,000 offshore energy jobs under a bus?

I thank Jack Middleton for securing this debate and congratulate him on his powerful speech.

I cannot understand, and I deeply regret, not only STV’s decision to cut its dedicated north of Scotland news programme, but Ofcom’s decision to approve it. It is appalling, short-sighted and hugely detrimental to the people of the north and the north-east of Scotland. What makes it even more frustrating is that it appears to have been rubber-stamped, despite reports that only 4 per cent of viewers in the north and the north-east supported the proposals. Yet again, our communities are not being listened to.

I well remember when STV announced plans last September to axe the north news bulletin and merge it into a single programme broadcast from Glasgow. At the time, I joined my Scottish Conservative colleagues in raising serious concerns about the impact that that would have on our constituents. As Laura Mitchell pointed out, that was not—and is not—a party-political point. Perhaps uniquely, we were—and are—united.

I remember that STV suggested that the proposal would save £2.5 million or so. However, given that, at the same time, it launched a £500,000 commercial radio station, I find that claim rather difficult to stand up. However, even should those changes save £2.5 million, the question is, at what cost?

There is a very real human cost. Some 10 per cent of the workforce is being cut, with a disproportionate impact on jobs in the north of Scotland. Further, there is a huge cost to news. For more than 65 years, the STV North news programme has done far more than simply report the news. As Maggie Chapman said, it has given a voice to rural and regional communities. It has reflected local priorities and provided scrutiny, balance and accountability at every level of Government and public life.

In my view, the provision of regional bulletins remains one of the most important public service broadcasting commitments, particularly for rural communities, which are too often overlooked. The proposals risk silencing the voice of the north-east.

I want to pick up on something that Michael Marra set out. Issues that matter deeply to our communities will, inevitably, receive less prominence and a lower depth of coverage in a centralised programme, where the focus will, as usual, gravitate to the central belt. That matters, because the reduction in regional output represents a substantial weakening of the service, of democratic scrutiny, of accountability and of representation for communities that already feel distant from decision makers. A single centralised programme cannot adequately provide the prominence, the continuity and the depth of coverage that are needed to reflect the distinct priorities and concerns of the north-east and the Highlands and Islands.

Jackie Dunbar made an important point. At a time when trust in mainstream media is under pressure and people are increasingly turning elsewhere for information, reducing trusted local journalism is exactly the wrong direction of travel, because, when local reporting disappears, misinformation, disinformation and fake news will all too readily fill the gap.

I am pleased that Jack Middleton lodged the motion so that we, as a Parliament, can come together to support regional journalism, stand up for the dedicated staff who are affected by these decisions, stand up for the communities that they serve and condemn the plans in the strongest possible terms. The fact is that public service broadcasting obligations must be judged by outcomes for audiences, not by operational convenience or corporate cost saving. That is why I support the calls in the motion. If public service broadcasting means anything, it means ensuring that every part of Scotland is seen, heard and represented.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will honour, in full, commitments made by previous ministers for transport to upgrade road infrastructure in the north-east of Scotland. (S7O-00064)