To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its position regarding investment in the future of Scotland’s nuclear industry. (S6O-03992)

The Scottish Government does not support the building of new nuclear power stations in Scotland under current technologies. We recognise the significant value that Torness and its workforce has contributed to Scotland’s economy over many decades and we support extending the operating lifespan of Scotland’s last remaining nuclear power station if strict environmental and safety criteria continue to be met.

Decommissioning Scotland’s nuclear sites will also take decades and will require the retention of a highly skilled workforce. National planning framework 4 supports the redevelopment of the Hunterston and Chapelcross sites and notes the opportunities to repurpose existing assets to create greener jobs.

I think that the minister should keep up with Brussels, because the European Council agreed months ago that nuclear power is a strategic technology for EU decarbonisation. She needs to read the EU renewable energy directive. It is astonishing that the SNP keeps peddling this blatant anti-science misinformation. What assessment has the minister made of how much carbon could be removed from our energy production if we used nuclear energy?

I have stated my Government’s view on nuclear energy. Regardless of what has been said in the EU, lots of EU member states are ceasing to use nuclear energy and want to phase it out. I give the example of Germany. I also point Stephen Kerr to the words of some academics from across the United Kingdom, France and Japan—Professor Steve Thomas, Dr Paul Dorfman, Professor MV Ramana and Professor Amory Lovins—who said in a statement that,

“After more than 60 years of commercial history, nuclear is getting further from, not nearer to, being able to survive without massive public subsidies.”

They also said that, constructing new plants takes considerably longer than renewable equivalents, according to the UK Government’s regulated asset-based model. Scotland is rich in renewable resources that will be able to be deployed far more quickly than any new nuclear plants.

Earlier this year, EDF Energy reported that, in the worst case scenario, Hinkley Point C could cost £47.9 billion to complete, compared to the 2016 estimate of £18 billion. Does the cabinet secretary agree, given that the public finances are so constricted by the Tories’ £22 billion black hole legacy, that we would be better placed to focus on Scotland’s natural abundance in the form of renewable power development, which is cheap and quicker to build?

I absolutely agree with that point, which Gordon MacDonald makes very well. It takes 17 years to put a new nuclear plant in place, and he has mentioned the cost that is associated with such developments. We cannot afford to waste time and money on that approach. While renewables have become cheaper in recent decades, new nuclear plants have only become costlier. In Scotland, we are lucky enough to have abundant natural resources and a highly skilled workforce that enables us to take advantage of those opportunities. Significant growth in renewables, hydrogen and carbon storage and capture provide the best pathway to net zero by 2045.