 The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 11662, in the name of Douglas Lumsden, on declaration to triple nuclear energy launched at COP 28. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons, and with that I call on Douglas Lumsden to open the debate. Mr Lumsden Sorry, Presiding Officer, and thank you to the members who signed my motion allowing us to debate this tonight. The purpose of this debate is a simple one, to bring Scotland into line with the majority of countries in Europe and the rest of the western world in recognising that nuclear power is a key component of a modern zero-carbon sustainable energy provision. At present Scotland's anti-science SNP government has shut the door to consider this green, sustainable and reliable form of energy. We are losing out to our European and Scandinavian partners and we are at risk becoming over-reliant on fossil fuels to supply our base energy levels. Quite simply, Presiding Officer, we are falling behind the rest of the world in an area that we have the skills and the potential to be leaders. And why? Because this SNP, so-called green government, refused to accept the science behind this technology, instead listening to anti-science rhetoric on this vital component of a green energy jigsaw. At COP 28, a declaration to triple nuclear energy was signed by many countries who see and understand the potential of nuclear to provide clean, sustainable energy as part of the move to net zero. The declaration understands the importance of the application of nuclear science and technology to continue contributing to the monitoring of climate change and the tackling of its impact. Its emphasis is the work of the international atomic energy agency and recognises that nuclear is already the second largest source of clean base load power. The agency demonstrates that nuclear energy will more than double before 2050 and also recognises by increasing nuclear, we will reach our net zero targets quicker and it is less costly. The declaration was signed by 22 countries and demonstrates the international recognition of the importance of nuclear as part of the picture of our journey towards net zero. I am very grateful to Ms Lumson to give way and isn't that right? The provision of nuclear power gives us both grid stability and security that is non-weather dependent. It is essential for going forward, particularly with regard to the security and the grid stability that we need across the UK. I thank Mr Whitfield for that intervention and he is absolutely spot on. It is part of the energy mix that is required to provide that energy security that we need. Indeed, many countries feel that this picture is incomplete without nuclear and that Jigsaw will have a gaping whole if nuclear is not included as a key part of providing for our energy needs in a carbon-free world. I thank Douglas Lumson for giving way. Does he share my concern that on a debate as important as our energy future and our energy security, there is not one single member of the Green Party in this chamber willing to come forward and debate it? Mr Hoy makes that a very good point there. I was expecting to see some of them in the chamber but, obviously, they don't want to make an argument against nuclear. I will miss you. I think that a rational approach should be taken here to energy policy because it's too serious to do anything else. However, are there not three risks, at least, of nuclear? One is that the costs of the Hingley point of one in Finland or Culeoto and the third one of EDF have massively overrun. Secondly, the decommissioning costs are really unquantifiable, as we have seen at Dunrae. Indeed, the costs are still with us today in providing employment, I suppose. Thirdly, and I hesitate to say this, but we look at Nord Stream that nuclear power stations are particularly prone to terrorist attack in the future, and that is something that we need to consider. In terms of energy security, it's much better that it's built in this country. In terms of costs for Hingley point, yes, it has increased, but so has the costs for all our energy, including wind. We have seen that move considerably in the CFD allocation round 6. In the short time that I have this meeting, I will address some of those points more. I want to set out the case for nuclear in terms of energy security, green credentials and economic viability. The war in Ukraine has revealed an over-reliance on Russian oil and gas in many European states. Countries without a base load of nuclear power, like Germany, have found themselves in economic hardship due to the fact that they do not produce enough power domestically and even turned to coal. We must ensure that in Scotland we do not fall into the same trap and provide energy domestically rather than import from other countries. While in Scotland we do have a good wind generation, nobody could deny that, but it's weather-dependent and does not provide the base load that is required day to day for our communities. At present, onshore wind provides 10.8 per cent of our UK energy mix, while nuclear provides 14.7 per cent. Wind is unreliable and dependent on being able to transport the energy from the turbines to where it is needed. To ensure grid stability and security, we require a form of energy that can supply a reliable base load 24x7, which nuclear does. It complements renewable generation but is required to supply that base load within the system. By utilising nuclear energy, we were able to cut gas imports by 9 billion cubic metres in 2022, thereby reducing our exposure to international gas markets. Nuclear makes sense in terms of energy security and is the only answer to ensuring that we can meet our base load requirements in a non-carbon way. Nuclear is a green form of energy. According to the UN, it has the lowest life cycle of carbon intensity, the lowest land use and impact on ecosystems, and the lowest mineral and metal use. It is also the only form of energy that is required to track, manage and make safe its own waste and does so very successfully and safely. I should have mentioned that price is built in to the initial cost. Nuclear energy is heavily regulated and has extremely high safety standards and is well respected within the energy sector. To go against that is simply hyperbowl made up by the green wine bar elites who prefer to use pseudoscience rather than the real science to back up their claims. Tornais nuclear power station has the capacity to power 2.2 million homes from one-tenth of a square of mile of land. It is rather different from our onshore and off-shore wind farms, but soon Tornais, like Hunterstead before it, will soon be turned off. With it, the future of many of our young workers who have not had the opportunity to work in the nuclear industry unless, of course, they upsticks and move down south where the Government does not have a blinkered view of the world. That was something that I remember from the nuclear industry reception hosted by my colleague Liam Kerr a couple of months ago. A young apprentice from EDF, I cannot remember his name, gave an inspirational speech on his career with EDF, but was now looking to move away from Scotland to continue his career. Highly skilled, bright workforce of the future lost to Scotland. Nuclear energy is produced where it is needed rather than in our precious rural countryside. On Friday this week, I am attending a meter of a local community council that is very worried about the impact of pylons and substations on our local community, which is built to transport the energy from wind farms to where it is needed in the central belt. The impact of those pylons— Would he accept that power generated by nuclear also has to be transmitted? Absolutely, but the minister misses the point. It is produced near where it is needed, and that is why it has less distribution and less pylons needed across the country. The impact of those pylons on our scenery of Scotland cannot be underestimated, and communities are rightly concerned about their impact on tourism and economic development, as well as the distribution to ecosystems during their construction. Finally, I would like to address the economic case for nuclear energy in Scotland. Wind energy has many hidden costs, such as transportation of energy, decommissioning costs of turbines, costs that are included up front in the construction of nuclear power stations. Nuclear does not have to be the most expensive option when done properly and at scale. In Scotland, the nuclear sector provides 3,664 jobs, 400 million GVA, and significantly almost 25 per cent direct employment occurs in the most deprived 10 per cent of local authorities. Nuclear has a key role to play in the energy future of Scotland to ignore it and use false arguments against it anti-scientific. This Government that apparently has superior green credentials is badly letting down the people of Scotland by not investing in this vital technology that could provide clean, green, sustainable energy for years to come. The position taken by this Government is badly letting down our communities. It is anti-science based on false claims, founded on fear and completely nonsensical. It lets down our energy industry, our communities and badly affect our standing with our neighbours. I call on this Government to join with countries such as the USA, Canada, France, Netherland, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and many others and welcome and nuclear as part of the energy mix, an essential piece of the jigsaw in reaching debt zero. I now call Jackie Den Barre to be followed by Graham Simpson. Before I start, I would like to refer members to my register of interest as I was a former councillor of Aberdeen City Council. As is traditional to do so, I would like to congratulate Douglas Lumsden on securing this debate this evening. The timing of his submitting this motion ties in not just with what was happening in Dubai on the global stage of COP28 but also what was happening in our old stomping ground of Aberdeen City Council. The same day that COP28 came to a close, Aberdeen City Council was due to discuss a petition calling for it to join nuclear-free local authorities whose members aim to tackle in practical ways and within their powers the problems caused by civil and military nuclear hazards. I understand from my former colleagues that the petitioners, when they finally spoke to councillors earlier this month, gave a very impressive presentation where they spoke of how renewable energy generation is both cheaper and doesn't leave future generations having to deal with the nuclear waste left behind. During a cost of living crisis, which has been driven in part by high energy prices, it is particularly important that we consider how much it costs to generate energy, especially if there is a risk of that being passed on to the consumers. As no male opposition took an intervention from any of the females on this side yesterday, so I am going to not give way to any male MSPs tonight. If we can't get intervene on the gentlemen, then I'm not going to take one from you. During a cost of living crisis, which has been driven in part by high energy prices, it is particularly important that we consider how much it costs to generate energy, especially if there is a risk of that being passed on to consumers. As things stand, I understand that nuclear costs £92.50 per megawatt hour, whereas offshore wind is £37.65 per megawatt hour. The major driver of that higher price is the upfront costs of construction of constructing the power stations. I think that ties into the Scottish Government's position, whereby they are supportive of extending the operating lifespan of Tornais, provided that strict environmental and safety criteria continue to be met but are not supportive of the building of new nuclear vision power stations in Scotland under current technologies. That cost remains too high, I believe, despite significant investment by the UK Government. Meanwhile, greener renewable technologies are not getting anywhere near the same level of financial support. Pump storage hydro is an example that I know that the minister has spoken of before, which is able to plug gaps in the intermittent supply that can result from other forms of renewable generation. Douglas Lumsden and I have the great privilege, as is the same as Audrey Nicholl, who is in the chamber tonight, to represent Aberdeen, which is, and I will keep saying this, the future net zero capital of the world. Alongside the hugely skilled workforce that we have, which I maintain as our biggest asset across and around Scotland, we also have an abundance of renewable energy sources. The motion that we are discussing today states that nuclear technologies can be located where they are needed. Let me, just before I finish, pose an open question in a Scotland that has much potential to generate wind, wave, tidal and hydro energy as we have. Where exactly do they think should be fully considered for hosting new nuclear plants going forward? I know that the motion mentions industrial zones, but I want to hear the place names in which part of Scotland, in which I will take an intervention from Mr Hoyd, because he is chundring from the sidelines, as you do it. The member asked for a place and location. Could I say Tornes near Dunbar in East Lothian? Unless, in case he did not realise what I was meaning, I meant the new places where they were going to go, because Mr Lumsden had decided that they should be near the places where they are going to serve. Moving to my conclusion, there may be a role for nuclear in Scotland at some point in the future, but at present the cost of new power stations runs into billions of pounds, takes years to construct and looks set to cost around three times as much per unit as can be achieved from renewable sources. As we look to tomorrow, I firmly believe that our focus should remain on clean, green and cheap renewable energy. Thank you, Mr Barth. I now call Graham Simpson, who is joining us remotely to be followed by Martin Whitfield. Mr Simpson. Thank you very much indeed. It has been interesting to listen to this debate so far. Can I congratulate my colleague Douglas Lumsden for securing the debate in the first place? I would just say to Jackie Dunbar that she asks where new nuclear should be sighted. Well, it cannot be sighted anywhere currently, because the SNP is blocking it under planning rules. If you want to remove those planning restrictions, you may see applications coming forward. Douglas Lumsden is absolutely right to point out that the main point of all this is energy security. I would have thought that members across the chamber—and by the way, I share Douglas Lumsden's disappointment that there are no greens taking part in this debate—would have thought that members across the chamber would recognise the need for Scotland and the rest of the UK to be energy secure, particularly in light of the conflict in the Ukraine. Surely, we do not want to be held to ransom for our energy by despots like Vladimir Putin. We need to have a mix of energy. We need to have wind farms. I think that there is a role for hydro as well, but we have to accept that the wind does not blow all the time and there is a need to cover that base load. That is why nuclear has a role. I was delighted when the UK Government announced that it would be setting up great British nuclear to herald the introduction of small, modular reactors. I can tell members, if they do not know already, that these reactors do not have to be built on site. They can be built in factories and then transferred to their ultimate locations. I think that this is a great development. It is good for the economy. It is good for jobs. It is good for skills. There is an ambition by the UK Government—I wish that the Scottish Government would get on board with this—to have a quarter of our energy provided by nuclear by 2050. I would like Scotland to be part of that. What does nuclear provide? It provides that energy security that I spoke about. Countries that phase out nuclear—Germany is a good example—become critically dependent on natural gas generation to guarantee security of supply. It provides that grid stability and security and requires a non-weather dependent 24x7 base load. It also provides green energy, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is as green as renewables. According to the UN, nuclear has the lowest life cycle carbon intensity, the lowest land use and impact on ecosystems, the lowest mineral and metal use. You would have thought that members of the Green Party would welcome that. Of course, there is an economic case for nuclear as well. Douglas Lumson spoke about skills. We both attended that meeting in Parliament where we heard the powerful presentation from a young apprentice who may well have to leave Scotland if we end up with no nuclear industry. That would be a crying shame. Scotland needs nuclear. I thank Douglas Lumson once again. I now call Martin Whitfield to be followed by Liam Kerr. I am very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate, which allows me to talk about Tornes and East Lothian in the south of Scotland. I want to start by thanking Douglas Lumson for bringing it. At a time when we are entering a period where debates about nuclear energy have to take place and they are taking place across the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, here in Scotland, we seem to have a Government that has closed its eyes to the future. That is important because Tornes is the last remaining nuclear power generation station in Scotland. To answer Jackie Dunbar's question about where a new site should be, of course the obvious site is where Tornes B was designed to be right next door. With the use of a nuclear reactor, the very same generation hall can be used to produce electricity in on-going. It has been announced and is in the public domain that 2028 could possibly be the last year of generation for Tornes. That means that Scotland will lose all of its production capacity for, as we have already heard, maintaining the grid. I am more than happy to. Mr Sweeney, do you need to put your card in, please? Apologies, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank my friend for giving way on that important point. He raises the issue about capital costs. One of the huge capital costs of building a nuclear power station is the Turbine hall, which already exists and can continue operating for many decades to come at Tornes. Plugging on some new modular reactors to that Turbine hall would massively reduce the capital cost of a new nuclear station, would it not? I am very grateful for that intervention. My friend is, of course, right. It is worth taking a moment to pause to discuss the aspects. We frequently hear about the high cost of nuclear power generation, but, of course, it is the only energy production where the consequences at the end of the life of the nuclear power station are taken into account. Indeed, only on 19 February, the Scottish Government published its paper on the challenges that face offshore wind decommissioning and the fact that the Scottish Government are unable to give a period of time when the Scottish Government will conclude its analysis on what it is going to do at the end of the generation period, particularly with regard to the wind turbine blades, which are themselves an intricate engineering marvel, but not easily recycled, not easily repurposed. The cost and the charge that has gone to the production of the wind through the wind turbine is not included in those costs. I am happy to give way. To point out to Martin Whitfield, I am sure that he will be aware of the onshore wind sector deal, where part of that deal is including a blade remanufacturing site as part of that deal. They are actually imminently recyclable. As I have spoken to a number of the onshore turbine manufacturers, there are a significant number of primary schools that already have beautiful rain shelters for their bicycles from the former turbine blade. However, I recognise that it is a challenge, and I hope that the Government recognise that it is a challenge, because it also puts to base this argument that nuclear power is so expensive. It is expensive because it is taking into account the whole life cycle and beyond of the production of green technology. I want to take time in the short time that I have, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I will impress you that Tornes last year generated eight terawatts of low-carbon electricity, and we can band you around figures, which has done quite a lot, particularly in debates. However, I also want to talk about the nearly 700 people who work there, and not just the apprentices that we have heard who are so skilled. I have a very brief intervention, Mr Hoy. Thank you. He may be coming to this point, but could I just ask Mr Whitfield that he will have met Matthew French, I believe as well, the talented employee at Tornes Power Station who was the Prince of the Year. When he was in this parliament, he wants to continue working in nuclear, and he wants to continue working in Scotland. Wouldn't it be deeply regrettable if we lost talent like that from so on? I am very grateful for that intervention, but it is not just Matthew. It is all the families that rely on the income from that. It is over 8,000 people who, during shutdown, come to ensure the safety of the nuclear power station site. It is all of the small businesses and small medium businesses that rely on that income—over £10 million—coming into East Lothian alone. The fact remains that, to take a simple ideological stance against a energy source that will be needed to maintain the grid, to ensure our security, I, with the greatest respect to the Scottish Government, feel is short-sighted and it is wrong. We need to redress this point, and they will find support, not to harbour and to shout out U-turn, but to support the nuclear power industry going forward, in particular for the apprentices, for the employees, for the families, for East Lothian, for Scotland and for the UK. I am grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Whitfield. I call Liam Kerr to be followed by Fergus Ewing. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am really pleased that Douglas Lawmson has called this debate today, but I am actually particularly pleased to see this minister responding, because I am confident from my previous dealings with her that she will take a more thoughtful approach than our predecessors. Almost exactly two years ago, I contributed to a debate on nuclear and dealt with all the Government's objections, and some that we have heard today, such as the economic argument that I tried to help Jackie Dunbar with earlier on with our misunderstanding. At the time, the price of power from Hunterston B until it was retired and from Tornes was about £45 per megawatt hour. Meanwhile, data suggests that the average price of 16 operational wind contracts of difference in Scotland is £82 per megawatt hour. I am pleased to inform Jackie Dunbar that the current offshore wind strike price is actually £73 per megawatt hour, not the way out of date figure that she offered. On the build cost, the Scottish Government at the time kept referring to Hinkley, but, while the smaller, cheaper SMRs are the preferred model that we would use in Scotland in any event, the actual construction and operating cost of Hinkley Point is only £30.50 out of the £92.50 strike price. The other two thirds is the cost of borrowing money. Interestingly, the National Audit Office said that the UK Government's regulated asset-based model might reduce the cost of Hinkley by about 40%. Furthermore, with wind, decommissioning costs are not included, unlike with nuclear, and constraint payments to compensate wind farm operators for curtailing their generation when supply exceeds demand cost £380 million in 2022. That is roughly £11 per megawatt hour. The Government has also historically pointed to nuclear being high risk in terms of safety, but there have been no major nuclear safety incidents in the UK industries in nearly 50 years. Anyone who has done their homework knows that all current operating stations have extraordinary levels of built-in redundancy whilst being subject to one of the most robust regulatory regimes in the world. The minister's predecessor is also worried about the waste, but seems unaware that the nuclear industry is the only one to track, manage, make safe and, crucially, pay for its own waste. Indeed, I recall that EDF and the UK Government have set aside some £15 billion to decommission existing power stations and dispose of waste for them, and in any event, the amount of waste that is produced by nuclear is very small. Almost all the radioactivity is found in a tiny fraction called high-level waste, which is robustly dealt with. However, the final point is about what we do if we don't have nuclear in Scotland. I will. Paul Sweeney? Does the member recognise that modern evolutions of fourth and fifth generation nuclear reactor designs consume nuclear waste as energy, thus creating a closed waste look? It is a fantastic point from Paul Sweeney. Moving on to what we do, if we do not embrace that technology, and if we do not move forward with nuclear, to pick up Martin Whitfield's well-made intervention earlier, wind turbines tend to operate at about 25 to 40 per cent of the time against nuclear, which operates just over 90 per cent of the time. Without nuclear power, when wind turbines are not operating or the solar is not producing, the grid would have to use sources such as gas, and it is notable—the poll was raised about energy security several times—that nuclear cuts are gas imports by 9 billion cubic metres in 2022. That is key. I asked the then minister in 2022 the following question. According to the climate change committee's net zero report, to hit net zero, the UK will need four times more clean power by 2050. They further say that 38 per cent of that needs to be firm power, in other words, base load. I asked him from what source will Scotland get that 38 per cent firm electricity generation. Of course, he never answered the question, and nobody can answer that question or has done since. I am looking forward to listening to the minister respond on that, because I am confident that, in closing, she will eschew the approach of our predecessors and not make false comparisons, not question the safety of the technology and the waste issue, but above all will answer the question if base load is not to be generated in Scotland by nuclear from where will the Government generate it. The facts that I have set out do not mean that we should not build wind. They mean that we should not try to do that with wind alone. We should follow the advice of expert modelling organisations such as the climate change committee, the OECD, the UN, the international agency, the energy agency, MIT, Imperial College, the energy systems catapult and build both nuclear and wind and everything else in Scotland to build a strong, secure, resilient, net zero economy. The privilege of being the energy minister for four years from 2011 to 2015 and that allowed me to meet and learn from some of the experts in Scotland and the UK, some of those that Mr Kerr has just mentioned. What struck me was that, to have a functioning electricity system, you need to have a variety of different provisions of electricity because each has pluses and minuses. There is a difference between electricity and most goods and services. I mean, I happen to like Mars bars, Maseratys and Macron Rouge wine, but I could live without them and if there was a shortage in the supermarket or the car showroom, it wouldn't matter one job. But in electricity, you need to generate enough electricity to keep the lights on, to keep the factories going and if you don't, you've got a very serious problem, as Germany has discovered with much of its industry, having had to shut down. The maximum that applies here best is Winston Churchill, who said that when it comes to electricity supply, the solution is variety and variety alone. The question is what is that variety? I am agnostic on future new nuclear power. When I was minister, the Government modulated its position to support the operation continued of Torness and Hunterston, which was welcome. I am agnostic now because the technology has driven forward, but so has the technology of advanced gas turbines. That has improved massively in the past 20 years, and I am no expert in any of that, I have to say. However, I think that baseload and backup will be an essential feature of an electricity grid system. It cannot be entirely stochastic. Although the risks of wind power are less pronounced than some argue, because of the way in which the electricity system is operated, as I learned when I visited national grid in Warwick some years ago, it is more reliable because you can predict within 24 hours where the wind is going to blow. Floating offshore wind, as Fred Olson told me over breakfast in Orkney, is advantageous for Scotland because our waters are deeper and fixed platforms are more expensive. Therefore, floating platforms allow us the opportunity to station the wind farms where the wind is blowing in a different direction and therefore make more money and generate more electricity. That is perhaps a turning point. To take the point that Douglas Lumson fairly asked about, if not nuclear, where do we get the baseload or backup from? I think that advanced gas turbines should be considered because they have improved so massively that they can be built very quickly. The technology is established and clear, unlike some of the smaller nuclear power stations where I am not quite sure that the technology has been fully developed. It may or may not be. I am not at… Douglas Lumson? Does he think that the Government's partners, the Green Party, would support him in advocating new gas turbine production? If I said that rain was wet, the Green Party would not support me. They are not here. I think that is a bit disappointing, but I will leave that to one side. I think that, in conclusion, there is far too much partisanship in those debates, and it will not get us very far. Rationality and rationality alone is what is required, and to try to look at things with an open mind, to recognise that technology has increased massively, the problems of the past will not be the problems of the future. Are we going to have too many wind farms, too much generating capacity from wind? There is a risk about that, and the profitability and economic benefits of wind are nowhere near matching oil and gas. I am afraid that that is a fact no matter how successful it ever becomes. So, in conclusion, listen to the experts and in this debate about electricity supply, can we not have less heat and more light? I thank Douglas Lumsden for bringing forward this timely debate. It is timely because, when it comes to energy, we are here in Scotland at an inflection point. Indeed, it is perhaps more accurately described as a tipping point. Are we minister about to tip forward to maintain and renew our nuclear future or backwards into what could be an intensely vulnerable position in terms of our energy security? If the answer to those questions is yes, the SNP Government must reconsider its approach to Scotland's nuclear future because nuclear is a critical part of the journey to net zero. That is why it is regrettable not to see greens here this evening, because they talk about net zero but neglect the fact that in many, many countries nuclear is going to be a fundamental part of that journey. As the declaration to triple nuclear energy signed at the COP28 summit underlines, nuclear will have that vital role to play in achieving global net zero targets by 2050. Regardless of what we do here, it will be other countries' nuclear capacity that helps us on that journey. As John Kerry said at COP, the targets simply cannot be met without it. There is, in effect, no net zero without nuclear. In my own region, EDF has signalled its ambition—no more at this stage than an ambition—to extend the life of Tornes power station. EDF says that it is planning to extend the life of four nuclear power stations in the UK, potentially, and to increase investment in its nuclear fleet—something that Scotland will lose out upon unless it reconsideres its position. It will make the decision on whether or not to extend the lifespan of those stations with those that have advanced gas cooled reactors. Minister, I think that it is important to make the distinction that the Scottish Government is very supportive of Tornes extending the life of the existing plant. Precisely, and I welcome the minister saying that, but if, in principle, you would like to see it extended, why not renewed? That is a question that the SNP and the Greens will have to tease out if they are really committed to net zero. Those stations obviously are Tornes, H1 and 2 in Hartlepool, and a decision will be taken by the end of the year, but the minister has preempted me. It is good to hear that she welcomes that. That will require regulatory approval, but the question here in Scotland is one fundamentally as to whether or not we want nuclear to be part of our journey to nuclear security. In the words of Fergus Ewing, the Government's mind and its eyes and ears are now completely closed to the benefits that nuclear brings. Let me just summarise those benefits. Tornes opened in 1988, and EDF Energy confirms that it is still one of its most productive nuclear power stations. Despite what the nuclear dooms sayers claim, it generates clean, safe power. Since it opened, Tornes has produced nearly 280 terawatt hours of zero carbon electricity. To put that into context, that is enough electricity to power every single home in Scotland for 28 years, and losing that will be a critical loss to our energy capacity and security. As Mr Whipfield says, it provides many stable, high-skilled and high-paid jobs and that pioneering apprenticeship programme that delivers for the local community and the local economy, which will be lost to the Scottish economy. Today, Tornes remains one of East Lothian's largest employers, with 500 staff, 250 contractors and a salary bill totaling £40 million per year, and much more through supply chain-related jobs. I hate to say that all of this—this is not a partisan point—is at risk because of what is now analogical, dogmatic and, frankly, environmentally and economically illiterate approach to nuclear energy in this country. As Mr Lumsden has made clear, the Scottish Conservative Party supports the future for Scotland, and extending the lifespan of those existing stations will help to cut gas imports, cut carbon and relieve winter pressures on our grid, but that would be a short-term price. The longer-term price would be for Scotland to follow the rest of the UK, France and many other European nations that the SNP extols the virtues off on a regular basis and look forward to a new fleet of nuclear stations here in Scotland. Frankly, the policy that the SNP is adopting at the moment beg us belief that Scotland will pay a heavy price if Scottish ministers do not think again on Scotland's nuclear future, because it is a fundamental part of our next zero ambition. Despite all the accusations of dogmatic and ideological, we have a position in the Scottish Government, and everyone knows our position, is that we do not support the building of new nuclear power stations in Scotland under current technologies. Our main objection to it is that it is expensive. It creates toxic waste, and we do not believe that it is needed for our future net zero energy system. However, I want to talk about Tornes. Tornes has been mentioned by a number of members—Martin Whitfield, Craig Hoyes, I have obviously got an interest. I would like to continue my point, and then I will take you, Mr Kerr. We recognise the contribution that Tornes has and other nuclear generation plants that I saw at once have made to Scotland's people in the economy. It is important for me to mention to Mr Hoye that we are supportive of an extension to the generation operating lifespan of Scotland's last remaining nuclear power station, Tornes. If strict environmental and safety criteria continue to be met, I will take Mr Kerr first. The minister said that the main issue that the Scottish Government has is the cost and the waste, but those exact points have been comprehensively debunked throughout this debate. How does she sustain that objection to cost and waste? Mr Kerr might think that he has debunked the cost issue. I beg to differ, and I am a part of my speech, and I will come on to that in particular. Jackie Dunbar was quite right in pointing out the difference in terms of terrible air costs, etc. There is also the cost of the building in the first place, which I will come on to. Nuclear power has historically played an important role in the electricity generation in Scotland, and there is no doubt about that. At the moment, it accounts for only 16 per cent of the total electricity generated in Scotland. Meanwhile, electricity generated from renewables accounts for about 71 per cent at the same period—that is from last year's figures. In consumption terms equates to 113 per cent of Scotland's gross electricity consumption being generated by renewables. The reduction in the electricity generation from nuclear power plant in Scotland will be compensated to a great degree by the vast expansion of renewables and flexible technologies. I want to mention that the thank you to Fergus Ewing for making this point is that we are in a very fast-moving technological situation. Existing technologies and emerging technologies, particularly in wave and tidal, but also in battery storage. We also have existing technologies that have not had the support that nuclear power has, such as pumped hydro storage. I want to make some points here. I want to come back to Mr Kerr's point. We cannot ignore England's current experience with the nuclear developments that are taking place. New nuclear power stations will take many more years than they actually predicted that they would, decades to become operational. They push up energy bills before those projects even come online. In 2013—I will just talk about the contract for defence for 35 years for Hinckley Point C—at £92.50 per megawatt hour, as was mentioned by Jackie Dunbar, far higher than the strike prices set for offshore and onshore wind in the sixth allocation round at £73.64 respectively. I will carry on. I also want to mention that, where nuclear has had a great deal of support from the UK Government, there are other existing technologies with high capital expenditure costs, such as pumped hydro storage, which have not benefited from the same scale of direct investment by the UK Government. Does the minister accept that the UK's largest pumped storage station in Wales can only produce the same electricity as 7.5 hours to our nest? Do you not see that that is completely inadequate? My point was about the fact that there is a great deal of investment that has been put into nuclear, almost like propping up the nuclear sector in a way that the other sectors have been ignored effectively. Given the geography of Scotland, pumped hydro storage is a major geographical advantage in that regard. Graham Simpson recognised its value in his speech. The nuclear gamble that the UK is taking right now does not just take my word for it. The international energy agency published research that suggested that nuclear power in the UK would be more expensive than any other country. However, the UK Government continued to commit significant sums of public money in Hinkley Point C due to being completed by 2025 at a cost of £23.5 billion. That is what we said at the time. However, taking inflation into account, last month EDF estimated that the project may not be completed until 2031 at a cost of up to £46.5 billion. I also want to thank Fergus Ewing for pointing that out. I have taken as many interventions as I think I can manage. Despite the delays and cost overruns, and the price per megawatt hour, the UK Government continues to stake taxpayer money on its nuclear gamble. Many times in Douglas Lam's speech and the other speech, we talked about being anti-science. Look at all the other countries that have decided not to go down the nuclear route. Are they anti-science too? Is Austria, is Denmark, is Ireland, is Italy, is Estonia, is Latvia, is Luxembourg, is Malta, is Portugal? No, I have taken as many interventions as I think I can manage. Liam Kerr mentioned about the small modular reactors as well. I will battle on through the constant barrage of chuntering there. Last week, the Environmental Audit Committee said that the Government's approach lacks clarity on SMRs and that it is unlikely to play a role in decarbonising the grid by 2035. Although SMRs are innovative, I am not blind and deaf to innovations in any kind of sphere that can decarbonise the grid and get us a more secure energy future. The thing is that they use the same method of electricity generation as traditional nuclear fission. They leave the same type of radioactive waste. I was struck by what Liam Kerr said about £15 billion has been set aside to deal with nuclear waste. What else can be done with £15 billion? Could we be investing that in pump storage hydro? Could we be investing that in moving battery storage where it needs to be? I will tell you that the one thing that I have noticed since taking this job is that so many visits that I have had in terms of battery storage is really coming on in terms of dealing with the intermittent nature of wind. I have already said that I am coming to the unend. We know that Scotland needs to deliver cleaner, greener energy, but new nuclear is not the answer. We are energy rich, as has been pointed out many times by many members. We will have more electricity than we potentially can use domestically. We are nearly in that space already. Instead of wasting money on the wrong solutions, we are going to continue to support clean green technologies that support energy security and adjust transition to net zero, as well as putting much funding into the innovations that will be able to store that electricity. I thank Douglas Lambson, however. We will disagree on that. Liam Kerr thought that I was going to make a massive new turn based on his arguments that he put forward. We disagree on that, but the one thing that we all agree on is that it is a very fast-moving area of technology. We cannot say never to any technology, but at the moment, nuclear is far too expensive and I believe that the waste is still a very much alive issue. For that reason, our position has not changed.