 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 2776, in the name of Craig Hoy, on decommissioning of torn gas nuclear power. That debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Craig Hoy to open the debate up to seven minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start by welcoming colleagues from across this Parliament from across the country to this debate. While today's motion centres on the future of torn gas nuclear power station in Dunbar, the benefits of torn gas are felt right across Scotland and beyond. Torn gas started operating in 1988 and EDF energy has recognised it as one of the most productive power stations in its fleet. Since it started generating safe, clean power, torn gas has produced nearly 280 terawatt hours of zero carbon electricity. That is enough to power every single home in Scotland for 28 years. The station has provided many stable, high-skilled, high-paid jobs since construction began in 1980. Today, torn gas is one of East Lothian's largest employers, with 500 staff, 250 contractors and a salary bill totaling £40 million per year. That is £40 million and more through supply chain-related jobs, which benefits families and the local and national economy. Torn gas has also provided much-needed apprenticeships for an area where too many young people still have to travel out with the county for training or skilled careers. Take the five new EDF apprentices who started last September. They will learn basic engineering skills in their first year before specialising in their trade in the second year. They will also get opportunities to gain life skills as part of the apprenticeship programme before completing the final two years back in Dunbar. That is just one of the many positive benefits that Torn gas power station brings to the south of Scotland region. However, as members will know, Torn gas is set to be decommissioned in 2028, two years ahead of the original schedule. The decision to bring forward decommissioning results from analysis from other sites that provided EDF with a clearer picture of the lifetime expectations as the station ages. The station is operating normally and safely, but it is coming towards the end of its natural operational lifespan. I would like to thank EDF for the undertaking that wherever possible, early and advanced employee engagement will provide career development and reskilling opportunities for those who work at Torn gas. There will be no hard cliff edge of job losses in 2028, although redundancies and redeployment are still likely to lie ahead. Just as happened at Henderson B, jobs will start to taper off as the defuelling process takes place before EDF hands over to Magnoffs to manage the full decommissioning process. I give way to Mr Whitfield. I am very grateful for the member to give way. Would he agree with me that although the jobs that are there within Torn gas are safe beyond the closure date, the chance of future apprenticeships and the skills that those young people have learned now are lost going forward because new apprenticeships will not be available after the closure? There is a very significant opportunity cost as the nuclear industry leaves the region that I represent. The opportunity for future skilled jobs will be undermined by the closure of Torn gas and the wider removal of the nuclear energy sector from Scotland. As Mr Whitfield says, the opportunity to give East Lothian residents skilled jobs in the nuclear sector is so too. I am sure that Mr McLean will rightly say what about renewables and so did friends of the earth in a briefing yesterday. Why can't we have both a future involving nuclear and renewables, a future that makes East Lothian the jewel in Scotland's energy crown, offering skilled and renewable energy jobs for now and into the future? I accept that the eventual closure of the present reactors at Torn gas was inevitable, but I do not accept that the end of the nuclear sector in Scotland is inevitable. I do not accept that the loss of the clean and stable energy supply that nuclear provides is inevitable. I do not accept that the loss of the skilled jobs in the sector is inevitable and I do not accept that the loss of the economic benefits nuclear energy provides to East Lothian and Scotland is inevitable. Instead, they are the direct result of the SNP and Green Party's irrational hostility to nuclear energy. The co-alation of chaos has got this wrong and they have not even done the modelling to assess the economic impact of their actions. If we want to meet and exceed Scotland's net zero ambitions, then nuclear power must have a role to play. I welcome the fact that East Lothian is now at the forefront of a significant renewables push, but renewables alone will not meet our requirements for stable, affordable clean energy supplies throughout the transition period. The Government is driving North Sea oil and gas into the ground, so it is utter madness to turn our backs on nuclear energy at the same time. Nuclear energy is reserved, but the planning system is not. The Scottish Government is using the planning system to scrap nuclear power by the back door. In doing so, it is setting itself on a mission to fail for its net zero emissions target by 2045. I have still to hear a well-reasoned argument for Scotland rejecting nuclear energy. The SNP Government's opposition to nuclear energy is playground politics at its worst. It is more about playing to the prejudices of the Greens than it is about achieving a safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy supply. The SNP and the Greens' opposition to nuclear is the politics of the student union. The SNP has mistakenly conflated its misplaced attitude to nuclear energy with its misplaced attitude to nuclear defence. The tidal mantras about ban trident and burns not bombs are now influencing its views on energy. For reasons known only to itself, the SNP Government has sought to demonise the word nuclear, despite the safety and security that it provides to Scotland and the UK. Today, of all days, where would we be if the SNP and the Greens had their way on energy or, indeed, on defence policy? The Scottish Government should reverse its shortsighted opposition to nuclear energy. My party will stand up for the nuclear industry. We will stand up for the jobs of those people working at Tornes and the contribution that it makes to the local economy. I hope that fellow members, including the member for East Lothian and his colleagues, on the SNP benches will rethink their position. I hope that they will stand up for local jobs. I hope that they will promote sustainable energy and drop their opposition to next-generation nuclear energy in Scotland. Thank you. Before I call the next speaker, I remind all members who are seeking to speak in the debate that they need to press the request-to-speak button, not looking at anybody in particular. I now call Paul MacLennan to be followed by Jamie Greene up to four minutes, please, Mr MacLennan. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank the colleagues for bringing forward this member's debate this afternoon. I actually agree with much of what he has said today so far. Tornes has been one of the most productive stations in EDF's nuclear fleet and has contributed to the local economy, if that is no doubt. I visited Tornes after being elected in May and indeed had visited previously when I was council leader. I have also had two additional meetings with the previous and new station managers. I have known and know many people who work at the station just now. I commend the contribution of Tornes in terms of its electricity generation and its contribution to the local economy. What we need to ask now is what we need to do to ensure what is the best solution in terms of electricity generation and contribution to net zero and employability. Renewables produced a equivalent of 98.6 per cent of Scotland's electricity consumption in 2020, mostly from Rind. The Scottish Government will bring forward an updated energy strategy, which I am sure the Cabinet Secretary will touch on in the spring, and it will be no surprise that that will not include a change in position on nuclear power. That has been made clear by the Cabinet Secretary and by the First Minister. That will be alongside a just transmission plan. I am also aware of the increasing interest in the development of new nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors, which has been mentioned in the chamber before. The Scottish Government, of course, will be due to bound to assess new technologies and low-carbon energy solutions and will continue to do so based on its safety case, the value for consumers and its contribution to Scotland's low-carbon economy. Encouraged, because what I think I have just heard the member say is that there is a possibility that he and his party will support the deployment of small modular reactors. Is it not true that, on this day of all days, it is wrong to continue the demonisation of nuclear as a word and as a source of clean energy? I would not agree that I said that I would support it. I said that it was due to bound, I think that the Cabinet Secretary and the First Minister has said that as well, and they remain doubtful, but they would look at it and it is due to bound to it, so that is not what I said. In 2016, Hinkley Point C, now nuclear power plant, received a contract for a different strike price of £92.50 per megawatt power, which is now increased by some 25 per cent since then. In January this year, the project was pushed back by a further six months and its estimated cost increased by another £500 million. Recent power price spikes underline the need to create better outcomes from energy investments, particularly those struggling with household finances. Analysis has identified that, in 2030 alone, Hinkley could add almost £40 a year to consumers' bills, whereas equivalent offshore wind could reduce it by £8. Significant growth renewables, storage hydrogen and carbon capture are the best way in which, just a second, to secure Scotland's future energy needs and to meet our net zero objectives. We have just heard in the chamber later on today—indeed, we heard earlier in the chamber in any case—that the UK SCC climate change recommended renewables-based energy is the best way of reducing exposure to volatile price rises. That was just announced today. I'll give way. Thank you. In case I might be pre-empting him, he hasn't yet mentioned jobs. Has he yet grasped that it is the job of a member of Parliament to come to this Parliament and to defend jobs in its constituency, not to throw them under a bus? Of course I'll come on to that. The recent Scotland-wind leason announcement of 17 new projects is, of course, extremely welcome. A total of just under £700 million will be paid to successful applicants in option fees and past to the Scottish Government for public spending. There will also be multi-billion-pound supply chain investment in Scotland, and I'll touch on that later on. The potential power generated will provide for the expanding electrification of the Scottish economy that has been moved 10 heads zero. Of course, once leason agreements are officially signed, the details of the supply chain commitments that are made by the applicants as part of their supply chain development statements will be published. I've already met with SOEC and Scottish renewables on issues that I'll touch again on that in a second. The recent Scottish renewables supply chain impact statement revealed that wind energy use could see its capacity increase by 231 per cent in the next eight years. The report was also found that the sector could triple in size by 2030. The sector already employs 23,000 people. The more long-established offshore wind and hydropower industries are also worth £2.4 billion and £915 million respectively during 2019. What do we do locally? On 18 March this year, I'm convening a meeting of energy companies looking at the future of employment in the sector in East Llywain. The meeting will focus on skills and labour, supply chain development, manufacturing opportunities and community benefits. All the organisations that I'm going to mention just now, I've met with them individually. The following companies will be attending are Inchcape, Sea Green, which includes SSE and Total, EDF Renewables, Scottish Power, EDF Nuclear, Scottish Gas Network, Community Wind Power, Viridor, Skills Development Scotland, Department of Work and Pensions, Scottish Enterprise, East Llywain Council, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh College, Scottish Engineering, Scottish Renewables, Scottish Government and Unite. Those will all be coming to the meeting on 18 March. I know that you took interventions, but we need to have other. I've taken a few interventions. Yes, I know, but we have time to move on. I've given some latitude because of that. Please now bring your marks to course. Those will be the series of meetings that will look at the opportunities that renewables will bring directly to East Llywain. Every worker who works at the State of EDF remains with the company, every single worker. In conclusion, the transition to renewables offers East Llywain many opportunities and increased employment, supply chain development, manufacturing opportunities and community benefits. As those will then constituency MPs, I'm clear that this transition needs to be managed well and requires constant engagement with all. I'm worried to do that and will continue to do so. I now call Jamie Greene to be followed by Martin Whitfield up to four minutes please, Mr Greene. Thank you. I thank Craig Hoy for this debate. It's allowing members who have had or hosted nuclear energy facilities in their region to participate, not just East Llywain, of course behind us and be power station in my west Scotland region. It wasn't entirely uncontroversial in its origin, we should be honest, but it has grown to be a great source of both debate and pride for the people of North Ayrshire in equal measures over the years. But whatever your personal or political views, it undoubtedly has led the charge in delivering reliable, low-carbon and cost-effective power to homes right across Scotland and beyond. It first opened in 1976 and that plant has provided 46 years of energy generation and employed hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs directly and indirectly and important apprenticeships. I think that we all owe them all. Every single worker there is a huge debt of gratitude because they and their families were welcome and they and their families have become a fabric of the community and society in my region. At its peak, this power station could provide enough energy to power 1.7 million homes. Over its lifespan, Henderson B has saved 224 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions over traditional carbon energy creation. Of course, members will know that cracks start to appear in their actors in recent years and that rightly caused concerns. I was the first to hold regular meetings and calls with civic agencies, the plant, its owners and local community interest groups who all had concerns, but its doors have now closed and the defueling process will commence, at which point the plant will be handed to the nuclear decommissioning authority. However, whilst we are losing this facility, I really think that there is an exciting potential on the horizon here and it is there that I want to focus my brief comments. North Ayrshire Council, along with partners at the University of Glasgow, the private sector and others, are currently bidding to host the UK's first nuclear fusion facility in Ardir near Ardrossan through the UK's STEP programme. That is a bid that I, and I hope that those benches and other benches will support as well. We have all received briefings, I am sure, in advance of this debate, which slightly diminished the importance of modern nuclear technology towards our efforts towards carbon zero. I respect people's views on that, but what makes the Ardir bid so different is that it will operate using nuclear fusion rather than nuclear fusion, and that is the key. When fusion creates energy by splitting nuclei into smaller particles, fusion does exactly the opposite. Effectively, hundreds of millions of tiny reactions every second can provide a massive amount of energy, with very small amounts of fuel used. That sounds technical, but it is important, because fusion is efficient, safer and cleaner. It is also cheaper, cabinet secretary. One kilogram of fusion fuel could provide the same amount of energy as 10 million kilograms of fossil fuel. Just think about that for a second, because by 2050, the world will be using twice as much electricity as it is today. We know that populations are rising, we know that living standards generally are rising, but so does the amount of energy that we use rises. We must ask ourselves a very simple question. How on earth are we going to provide for those energy needs? Given the current events, it reminds us of the fragility of that supply, gas in particular. Prices were on the rise, and I have no doubt that they will be on the rise further. It is all very well extolling the sanctions on energy companies in one part of a debate in this Parliament, but then bemoaning the energy crisis and the cost of living in another. Both are viable arguments, but viable solutions must equally be found. I am really short on time, so I apologise. I wish I had more time. I am not advocating that nuclear is the only source of energy. No one doubts the importance of renewables in Scotland. It is one of our environment's great assets, but the reality is that we are simply not there yet, Deputy Presiding Officer. Renewables alone simply cannot and will not fulfil all our energy needs right now. Electricity perhaps in the future, but gas less so. We are still using it, we still need it, so we either extract it or we buy it. I want to mention this, because there is a real lack of interest and enthusiasm from the centre benches, not just in North Ayrshire, but across Scotland. There is a lack of strategy for bringing the so-called green jobs on the ground. Where are the jobs that will replace the people who work at Henderson? I want to cement Scotland's reputation as being at the forefront of scientific excellence. Let's make progress towards net zero. Let's make progress towards rejuvenating. Mr Greene, could you please bring your mic so close? Let's secure energy supply first and foremost. Let's not look back at this as a missed opportunity, cabinet secretary. Please listen to our request. I am very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank Craig Hoy for bringing this member's debate today on such an important aspect, both from East Lothian, the south of Scotland, but also for energy provision across Scotland? As we heard, Tones was began to be built in 1980, but first started generating power only eight years later in 1988. It has been one of the most productive plants in the fleet, generating enough zero carbon electricity, the zero carbon that we are all striving for to power every single house in Scotland for 28 years. But it is now working beyond its original expected 25 to 30 year design life. These are designs from the 70s. It's like going on holiday and hoping you don't get an old-fashioned Boeing 747 that's been riveted together. And it is a tribute not only to the 550 EDF staff on site, plus the 180 full-time additional staff that are there, but it is also a tribute to the skills and the knowledge of those who are in charge, both at EDF and above in those that enforce the regulations over our civil nuclear fleet. Electricity production will end in 2028 following inspection, modelling and operational experience gained from across the United Kingdom and indeed further. The decisions that are taken are being based on evidence and knowledge, but founded in the requirement for safety. It was a tribute to Jamie Greene for his tribute to Hunterston B and the information that was learned during the cycle of that fleet on it, because safety lies at the heart of the nuclear power industry and has done from day one. And that is why to convolut the nuclear power for the production of electricity, safe zero carbon electricity with that of nuclear weapons is really to do a disservice to a highly skilled industry. And talking of the skills in the industry, I would like to spend a short moment congratulating Lisa Hilfarty, who at 26 was named the station's apprentice of the year last year after four years of skilled training. Along with Lisa Murray-Gilvery, Conrad McNeill, Thomas Somerville and Paige Gull all qualified as apprentices, now able to take those skills and trade around the world. The problem is that the replacement for those apprenticeships, if the Government's policy is no to nuclear per se, then they must have something else to offer those young people. The problem is that at the moment it simply does not exist. Martin Whitfield. Absolutely. That's why I took the opportunity to pay tribute to those apprentices who've been through a highly skilled course around the whole of the UK, not actually supported by the apprenticeship fund because they were travelling to England for part of their training, but shows the commitment of EDF to the young people into going forward. The closure of Tornes will mean a shortfall in the capacity, and this has to be filled. And in part, and in all probability, it's going to be filled from the open global market from gas and from places such as Russia. This is going to prevent more ambitious emission reductions that will threaten Scotland and the UK energy security going forward. I know that time is short, but I very quickly want to pay tributes to the CNC, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, who have protected our nuclear fleet and do so in some of the worst conditions that the weather can throw at them. They do so to keep us, to keep our plants, the fleet safe but most important to keep energy security here in the UK, and nuclear power needs to play a part in that zero carbon future. I rise to make a very small contribution regarding the final part of Craig Hoy's motion, where he calls on the Scottish Government to review its blocking of any future civilian nuclear energy projects in Scotland. Marie Todd MSP set out the Scottish Government's position in the John O'Groats Journal last week. She rejected nuclear power as she said it is high cost to consumers over other options, is high risk in terms of safety and is not sustainable. She went on, we must focus on reliable energy sources that align with our net zero ambitions. I believe that the renewables plan has set out in the Scottish energy strategy offers just that. Not unusually when stress tested, her arguments lack foundation. She is apparently unaware that the Scottish Government confirmed to me earlier this month that it has no strategic transition plan from Scottish-generated nuclear energy to renewables. How she knows that nuclear does not align with our net zero ambitions is extraordinary, given that the cabinet secretary told me that it is not currently possible to distinguish between types of generation or fuels in order to break down CO2 emissions data from energy generation sources in Scotland. As Craig Hoy flagged, the Scottish Government will not replace Tornes and Hunterston yet has done no modelling of the impact on energy bills and the cost of living crisis, so her cost claims are spurious at best. Finally, Marie Todd justified her position by stating, I believe that the vast majority of the public is back my position. I respectfully suggest that she reviews some UGov research published in the run-up to COP26, which shows in Scotland that 65 per cent are in favour of a role for nuclear in the energy mix, with 13 per cent against and 20 per cent don't know. She also said that nuclear was high risk in terms of safety, yet there have been no major nuclear safety incidents in the UK industries 46 years. Anyone who has done their homework knows that all current operating stations have extraordinary levels of built-in redundancy and new reactors are designed with even higher levels of safety built-in with further enhancements as the technology has moved on, all whilst being subject to one of the most robust regulatory regimes in the world. Next, on the economics over other options, the price of power from Hunterston B until it retired and Tornes is about £45 per megawatt hour. Wind contracts for difference historically average around £90 to £100 per megawatt hour and have only recently reduced to similar levels to Tornes. In terms of build costs, the UK Government's proposed regulated asset base model will lower the cost of financing, which Paul MacLennan will be delighted to hear the national office is saying would have reduced Hinkley's costs by 40 per cent. In addition, wind turbines only operate 25 per cent to 40 per cent at the time. When they are not operating without nuclear, the grid has to use expensive gas to fill the void. Nuclear stations operate more than 90 per cent of the time, requiring far less backup. Finally, on the waste, bear in mind that the nuclear industry is the only one to pay for and clean up its own waste. EDF and the UK Government have already set aside £14.8 billion to decommission and dispose of waste from the existing power stations. An increasing fund, equivalent to about £2 per megawatt hour, has been created to cover the cost. The amount of waste produced by nuclear is also very small. Almost all radioactivity is in a tiny fraction of the waste called high-level waste. Over the lifetime of the station, there is one dishwasher tablet worth of such waste for every person in the UK. A short contribution to this debate, but one that I think is necessary if only to add some scientific and data-driven fortitude to a Scottish Government position, which is anything but. Members in the chamber have illustrated the challenge that Scotland faces with energy in future. With Scotland using more nuclear power than any other UK nation in 2020 at 26 per cent, the forthcoming ending of generation at Tornes and the already cessation of generation at Hunterston B this year presents a significant challenge to the resilience of Scotland's electricity grid. Given that the country will need four times as much clean power by 2050 to hit net zero according to the climate change committee, 38 per cent of that clean power needs to be from firm, reliable, always-on power sources, regardless of weather conditions. We are faced with a stark choice—reliance on gas or the utilisation of new generation nuclear stations, whether in Scotland or in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is as simple as that. Therefore, we are presented with a choice. I do not think that the choice simply is the non-secutor presented by other members such as Hinckley Point C. I am not a fan of the European pressurised water-reacted technology. I think that it is a dog of a design and deeply problematic. It is a symptom of the domination of the British nuclear industry by the French state. However, we have other opportunities presented to us not just to look at new technologies but to build an industrial renaissance in Scotland by being at the forefront of the energy industry. The father of nuclear physics, Sir Ernest Rutherford, in 1933, mentioned that the energy produced by breaking down the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from transformation of those atoms is talking moonshine. We hope in the next few years to get some idea of what those atoms are, how they are made and the way they are worked. Even Rutherford's statement illustrates how great minds fail to anticipate the evolutionary direction of their own discoveries. The conversion of matter into energy, like all scientific discoveries, can be used for good or for ill, and it is for us to make the right choices. New types of nuclear reactors have significant potential to improve safety, reduce waste and reduce cost. Those are the three principal threats to public acceptance of nuclear power generation. That opens up the prospect of making an important contribution to the strategy for future emissions reduction. Scotland should support the development of such nuclear power technology. Nuclear generation has very low CO2 footprints, but most existing nuclear plants are not suitable for coping with variations in grid demand and cannot contribute to restarting the system after a grid failure, because the presence of the grid is required as a prerequisite for the reactor to start up. We should seek to design nuclear plants that are more commercially competitive, reliable, flexible and exploit inherently passive safety features that can contribute very significantly to capital cost reduction. Those ambitions seem to be a tall order, but new fourth generation reactor technologies should be able to deliver such a vision. One example is molten salt reactors, which are designs that are now showing great promise in a number of countries. Those designs have the potential to achieve large cost savings by removing the hazards that could lead to explosive release of dangerous fishing products into the atmosphere. In the hierarchy of approaches to safety engineering, hazard elimination, barn reduction and likelihood, or mitigation of consequences of the hazard itself, normally prove to be the most cost-effective strategy. That is where technologies such as molten salt come into their own. There are other favourable features of molten salt reactors, including the salt and steel corrosion problems that are eliminated by chemical-reducing properties in the coolant formulation. Refueling can be carried out on-load and unpressurised for the reducing capital cost. Maintenance of long-lived radiactive waste is much easier and cheaper, since the radiactive waste with fairly long half-lives is converted into much shorter half-life isotopes. A range of fuel types can be used. For example, thorium fuel has the potential to be used when uranium reserves begin to run out. The UK legacy stock of plutonium can be used for new fuel production. Re-use of plutonium as fuel would have immense strategic value as a contribution to removing and reducing proliferation of potential weapons material. Molten salt reactors can also be factored and produced as road transportable modules. There is a potential utilisation of new technologies that can build a supply chain in Scotland that would crowd in wealth and opportunity. If the nuclear industry had not evolved from military imperatives and had developed independently, molten salt technology now under development would probably be regarded as a dream contribution to the challenges of reliability and carbon reduction for the electricity system. That is the opportunity to be presented with if we reassess fundamentally what nuclear energy can present for this country. I urge the cabinet secretary to broaden his horizons and consider these emerging fourth generation technologies. Scotland can be the lead on this globally, and we should seize that opportunity. Thank you. I now call on the cabinet secretary Michael Matheson to respond to the debate. Around seven minutes please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I congratulate Craig Coyne on securing time for this important debate on what is an important facility in Scotland at Tornes and the power that it has provided to Scotland for more than 30 years and will continue to do so for the next couple of years. I recognise the very valuable role that the workforce has provided over many decades and the important role that it plays within the East Lothian community points, which were highlighted by Craig Coyne himself, by Paul McClearn and also by Martin Whipfield in their contributions. Clearly, it is a facility that has now set a timeframe for the period to come offline and to move into decommissioning phase. A key part of the work that we have taken forward in the course of that is through Scottish Government agencies working in partnership with the national decommissioning agency to look at what support and assistance can be provided to the workforce as it transitions away from being a nuclear facility to other opportunities. However, of course, as we are now at the point where this is a facility that is now planning to come offline in 2028, we need to consider whether Scotland's electricity supply remains secure as a result of the loss of output. That is why the national grid conducted a detailed study into the effects of the earlier decision to end production at Tornes. As a result of the closure of that particular facility, the study from the national grid, which is responsible for ensuring the security of supply, is that Scotland's system remains secure with some mitigations that need to be put in place, a key part of which is including increasing our own capacity. In addition—let me make a bit of progress first of all—our own energy sector has been in transition for some time now. We are very clear as a government. Our priorities are renewables, storage hydrogen and carbon capture and storage, which we believe provide the best pathway to Scotland reaching its net zero target by 2045. We have been making very good progress in taking that forward over recent years, particularly with the expansion of greater renewable capacity. We now have the equivalent of around 98 per cent of our electricity, now coming from renewable sources. We want to build on that and develop that further as we progress further forward. I will give way to Mr Kerr. I am not entirely convinced by some of the statistics that we have just heard, but going back to the point about national grid, does the cabinet secretary not recognise that all of national grid's future energy scenarios include nuclear? In relation to the UK, yes, it does, but it is not here in Scotland in terms of security of supply, which is what the study specifically addressed. Can I just say to the member—I hear from a surgery position, as ever with Mr Kerr, in questioning details on those matters—in relation to 98 per cent, where exactly does he think that figure came from? It comes from the assessment through the national grid. Let me just give you some of the details. Scotland currently is a net energy and electricity exporter and, in 2020, exported 20.4 terawatt hours of electricity, the equivalent of powering every household in Scotland for 26 months. Scotland imported a little over one terawatt hour in 2020, meaning that the net export of electricity from Scotland is 19.3 terawatt hours in 2020 alone. That is a record high level, a reflection of the investment that has been made into our renewable energy sector, which is why it is a priority for us going forward. That is why we are very fortunate as a country to be in a position where we have such extensive potential to develop our renewable sector. That is why it is important that we build on that and we make progress on that, because it not only helps to decarbarise Scotland, it will help to decarbarise the UK and beyond. I will give way to Mr Horwit. I thank the minister for giving away, just for clarity and to address the point that Marie Todd said. Does the minister believe that nuclear power, particularly the station at Tornes, is safe? Yes, I accept that it is a safe facility and that there is a very strict regime around that. However, it is also wrong to try and give the impression that there is no risk associated with nuclear power. Fukushima took place in 2011, not that long ago. We need to be mindful of the risk that is also associated with it. It is not risk-free, but it is a very safe facility. Excuse me, can you resume your seat for a second? There is far too much. Mr Horwit, you intervened in the cabinet secretary and he gave you an answer. From a second position, you continue. That is not the way to do it. Seek another intervention or listen to what the cabinet secretary says. Thank you very much. I hope that I have answered the member's point. Let me also point to the first phase of Scotland, where the approach that is being taken by Curnaceate Scotland demonstrates an ambition from the sector to deliver some 25 gigawatts of offshore wind across Scottish waters. I think that that is a real testament to its confidence in the approach that the Scottish Government is taking in investing and in supporting our renewable sector, and to make sure that we also secure the jobs and the benefits that can come from that. I also want to turn to the issue around the idea about the cost impact of the nuclear sector. If we set aside the waste and environmental concerns, nuclear power is well recognised as being poor value for customers. It is an expensive form of electricity to produce. The evidence that was provided by the contract awarded by the UK Government to Hinkley Point C, which Paul McClellan made reference to, is that the price for generating is £92.50 per megawatt hour. You can pair that with the electricity that is generated from offshore wind. It is currently at £39.65 per megawatt hour. The assessment is that, under the UK's forward look in future generation, the cost in 2030 to each household bill, as a result of Hinkley Point, is potentially £40, in addition to the cost as a result of that programme alone. Whereas, in the equivalent of offshore wind, it would actually be £8 less per year. I will give way to Mr Tair, who can stand in his feet this time and ask a question. I am very pleased to take the opportunity to stand in my feet and ask a question. Paul McClellan raised the prospect that you, cabinet secretary, in your duties as responsible for energy, would consider, with an open mind, the possibility of small modular reactors. Some of the issues that you have been discussing are addressed through the deployment of small modular reactors. We have heard some of the excellent speeches on the engineering and science behind all this, but there is a real potential benefit in SMR. Will he look at this with an open mind as a benefit for Scotland? The reality is that small modular reactors are a change in construction type, but the technology is by and large the same on a smaller scale. As we have set out in our energy strategy, under existing technologies, we do not support new nuclear energy provision. Although there is a change in scale in nature of its construction, in terms of the principle of the nuclear process, it remains the same. It is not a new technology in that sense. I will give way to Mr Tair. With the cabinet secretary accepting, as I outlined in my speech, that the transformational effects of such technologies as molten salt can introduce passive safety so that it is a revolutionary change in how the nuclear industry would operate, massively reducing the capital cost of stations. Even looking at the supply chain, Rolls Royce is interested in building a heavy-pressure vessel factory in the UK, £200 million of investment. The member for Glasgow province said that he has not even met the company to discuss the prospects that have been located in Scotland. That is a supply chain opportunity—heavy engineering and advanced manufacturing. Could that at least be something that the cabinet secretary considered taking up proactively with Rolls Royce? I am sure that Ivan McKeeble will respond to the particular point in terms of pursuing anything with Rolls Royce through inward investment. However, the position of the Scottish Government in relation to the existing technologies that are available for fission nuclear energy is not consistent with its energy policy, and that will not change under the review of our existing energy strategy. That includes the small reactors that the member made reference to. I thought that it was an interesting point that Liam Kerr made, and that was in relation to the costs that are associated with the decommissioning of nuclear energy, made reference to the significant amount of money that EDF has set aside to cover nuclear decommissioning. Who does he think has provided that money? It is us, customers. We have provided that money through our bills. The cost of decommissioning is not something that is picked up by the companies in some philanthropic approach. It is based into the cost and is added on to our bills as a result. To try and give the impression as though decommissioning is something that is picked up on by the commercial companies alone, is factually incorrect, because it is met by the additional costs that are put on to customers' bills, and that is why it is a poor deal for the taxpayer. Even if you take somewhere like Hunterston A, which stopped producing electricity back in 1990, it has still been through its decommissioning process. The cost of that is fixed into people's household bills. That is why the costs of nuclear energy are well recognised as not being good value for customers. That is why the Scottish Government's focus is on making sure that we invest in renewable energy, ensure that we make the best use of Scotland's natural assets and ensure that we do that in a way that is consistent with Scotland reaching net zero by 2045. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate. I suspend this session until 2.30pm this afternoon.