Sarah Boyack
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“It must ensure that people get support to make their homes warm and energy efficient; support on solar, heat pumps and heat networks; affordable and accessible buses that they can rely on, with links to our railways; investment in our land to restore our peatlands; and a joined-up approach to food production and biodiversity.”
“Referring to what Ariane Burgess said, I have also been campaigning on the need to urgently address our climate and nature emergencies and to create decent jobs and empower local communities at the same time. For me, being in here is about delivering change that will benefit my constituents.”
“That taught me that constructive hard work and using the powers of our Parliament could deliver real change. For me, it was about investing in our railways—Airdrie to Bathgate, Larkhall to Milngavie and Stirling to Alloa, and supporting work on the Borders railway—as well as new CalMac ferries, improving island airports and tackling potho…”
“I hope that it is okay that I borrow a minute from my colleague. In the run-up to the 2016 election, I worked on a member’s bill to introduce a transient visitor levy.”
“In the climate change plan, we also set out greater detail on our methodology in order to provide greater transparency on the key assumptions and dependencies. However, Sarah Boyack is absolutely right, and that is where constructive criticism comes in— constructive criticism that recognises all the things in the plan that we need to do.”
“We need an urgent focus on implementation. Does the cabinet secretary agree that a key message from those who gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and other parliamentary committees was that it is all about delivery and that the draft plan did not go far enough?”
The complete record
Every one of 502 lines we hold for Sarah Boyack, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 11.
“Will the minister take an intervention on that point? Siobhian Brown: I will. Sarah Boyack: The intention is to bring those regulations by the end of 2025. Is the minister absolutely definitive about that? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back for the interventions, minister. Siobhian Brown: Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Yes. I know that we cannot do the primary legislation in the current session, but we can put secondary legislation in place. The reason why the discussion paper was delayed slightly is that I wanted to make sure that we could achieve what we want to achieve in 2025.”
“I have been speaking to representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about some of those aspects, too.”
“I realise the importance of her point, but I genuinely think that the two Governments can work together here. I hope that there would be an ambition at UK Government level to see a better balance being achieved between the prices of gas and electricity. We certainly make that argument and we wait for action on it. Such an outcome would dramatically transform the ability of people across the UK to electrify the systems in their homes and move away from using fossil fuels. On community heating and district heat networks, we can learn from the example of Denmark. I have met people from that country to discuss various issues in that context. The authorities there are obviously a long way ahead of us, but we can learn a lot from them.”
“For local authorities and housing associations, where is the support that they will need now, because it is not— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, please respond. Alasdair Allan: I thank Ms Boyack for raising several questions, which I will try to address. On her first point, Ms Boyack rightly said that we should do everything that we can, within our existing devolved powers, to address the twin problems of fuel poverty and the climate crisis. The Scottish Government is already putting £300 million a year into seeking to address those issues, and specifically to address the problem of houses that need better insulation. Ms Boyack made a point—which I accept was rhetorical—about the Government hiding behind the division between powers that are reserved and those that are not.”
“There are existing projects across our urban and rural communities that could see us having community heat networks, if we learn lessons from our Nordic neighbours about supporting and empowering local authorities to deliver their ambitions. Will the Scottish Government announce what it is doing to support local authorities to deliver projects through the local heat and energy efficiency strategy plans, which were submitted in January 2024? Does the minister agree that our constituents need more support to make their homes affordable to heat— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Briefly, Ms Boyack. Sarah Boyack: —whether it be through insulation, solar batteries or heat pumps, given the cut to the solar funds?”
“I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I welcome the commitment to finally introduce a heat in buildings bill in this parliamentary session, because we urgently need people to have warmer and more affordable homes. We are still way behind our European neighbours on the provision of energy-efficient homes and we need effective solutions. Reform of our electricity markets is under way. Instead of hiding behind the fact that it does not control energy prices, the Scottish Government should exercise its devolved powers to support the provision of better insulation and renewable heat solutions in Scotland now. I have three questions for the minister. He mentioned the growth in Scotland’s renewables.”
“Therefore, collaborative work with the UK Government is not just something that is nice to have; it is critical if we want to make progress on those points. I am happy to share a little more detail when the investment task force reports. At the moment, we are looking at the short to medium term. We will collate the expressions of interest and look for ways to progress those. Some of that work might evolve as we see the level of interest, and some of it might be confirmed later down the line. Sarah Boyack asked other questions, but I am afraid that I could not scribble them all down quickly enough, so I will come back to her.”
“The joint working must continue, because, although there has been a lot of focus on the available investment—£25 million from the Scottish Government and £200 million of ring- fenced funding from the UK Government—our understanding is that considerable policy changes need to be made. I have raised with the UK Government the nature of those policy changes. For example, project willow’s findings chime with Unite’s view that a biorefinery that is capable of producing sustainable aviation fuel is feasible at Grangemouth, but work and investment are required first, before deployment can take place. The policy landscape needs to be altered to ensure that sustainable aviation fuel production in Scotland is possible.”
“Given the urgency of the situation at Grangemouth, where is the Scottish Government’s just transition plan? It was promised years ago. When will the new investment task force report? Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the focus needs to be on the jobs and industrial investment that will be delivered, so that Grangemouth continues to deliver energy security through jobs now and in the future, rather than being an import terminal? Kate Forbes: There were a lot of questions there. As was the case with Douglas Lumsden, I probably did not cover in full a lot of those questions in my statement, so I am happy to follow up with both members to make sure that I answer them all.”
“I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of her statement. It was great that we had the joint briefing from the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy and the UK Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero when the project willow report was published last month, because the workers and the communities at Grangemouth urgently need investment. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that that joint work and co- operation between our Governments needs to continue? It is great that the Deputy First Minister is promoting training at Falkirk College, but where are the jobs for the people doing that training? Given the scale of green jobs that have been promised over the past 17 years, we urgently need to know where those green jobs are.”
“That work by the Scottish Government to engage and attract the interest of the private sector will ultimately lead to the development at scale that the member alludes to. I can also point to specific things, including strategic projects such as Sumitomo’s new cable factory, which is under construction at Nigg, or the planned manufacturing facility at Hunterston, as well as projects at Ardersier, Scapa, Nigg and”
“The minister was at a very positive Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Council event in Parliament this week, where many people raised with me the issue of supply chains in manufacturing. My question follows on from the minister’s answer to the previous question. Will he focus on providing certainty by speeding up decisions? Supply chains are a major issue that Lothian region faces, and we need to be able to get the investment that we need. Alasdair Allan: I concur with what the member said and thank her for sponsoring that event. I also highlight the importance of the Scottish supply chain. As I said, we are investing up to £500 million over five years and we hope and expect that that will leverage in additional private investment of up to £1.5 billion in the infrastructure and manufacturing facilities that are critical to growing the sector.”
“Will the minister or the cabinet secretary agree to meet Lothian Buses to discuss the issue of enabling bus operators to withdraw the under-22 bus pass when the cardholder has been involved in antisocial behaviour? My understanding is that the pass can be removed only when there has been fraudulent activity. The inability to remove the pass is creating a big problem for people in the Lothians at the moment. Jim Fairlie: As the member knows, we are well aware of the issue that she has raised. Indeed, the cabinet secretary discussed it yesterday with the Confederation of Passenger Transport. That conversation is on-going—we are not ignoring the issue. Work is being done behind the scenes to allow the conversation to continue, and we will continue to look at the matter until we find some solutions. House Coal (Ban) 5.”
“Will the cabinet secretary come back to members before we hit stage 2, so that we can have a more intelligent and joined-up discussion on amendments and are not just flying through amendments at stage 2, with some getting passed and some not, and some more arriving at stage 3? I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on whether we could come together, have some rational conversations and make sure that the bill delivers in the way that it could. 17:13”
“That is a huge missed opportunity, not just for constituents in my Lothian region but right across Scotland in our towns, cities and villages. People are going to miss out. We will push hard for change in the bill. We have worked really hard on the previous two land reform bills, and we cannot afford this third land reform bill to be a missed opportunity. As I said at the start of my speech, we will be constructive but we will propose amendments to the bill, because we think that, at the moment, it does not deliver on the ambition that we need in Scotland to deliver for our communities. The Presiding Officer: You must conclude, Ms Boyack. Sarah Boyack: I want to make one call to the Scottish Government.”
“Admittedly, it is placed on a small percentage of farmers, but could the land management plan not be done in the same way as the legally required whole-farm plan, rather than our having a double approach? That would pull resources together and, if the process is crafted correctly, we would get the same outcomes. One other issue that I would like to mention in relation to land management plans is the point that was made by Ramblers Scotland about the fact that we are seeing too many examples of restrictions on access creeping in. I have seen that for myself when I have been out walking in the countryside, and I think that the proposed new section 44B of the 2016 act is absolutely crucial in that regard. One of the things that I want to focus on in my final remarks is the fact that urban land reform is not included.”
“A lot of people have talked about the lotting process and the importance of giving rural communities the chance to put in bids. That is important, but the committee again questioned how the decisions will be made. The suggestion of independent advice is critically important. The recommendation that the proposed new land and communities commissioner be empowered to proactively investigate potential breaches of the community engagement obligations is important. We cannot wait for the wrong decisions to be made before we act. At the moment, there is not really a requirement in relation to how the complex process that is being suggested involves local communities. I have mentioned the timescales, and a lot of detail needs to be sorted out. One example that could be looked at is the unnecessary administrative burden.”
“We do not think that a public interest test on land should have been dumped from the bill, so we need to do some cross-party work on that to look at the detail and make sure that we get it right for stage 2 and then stage 3. One thing that several members have commented on, which I strongly agree with, is that there are problems with communities being given only 30 days to register an interest in sales of land that is more than 1,000 hectares. That is simply not realistic. If communities are to come together, they will have to think about how to raise the money and pull together the plans. They need a bit more space to pull together the resources. The good examples that were cited by Emma Roddick, for example, about the transformation that can be delivered by community ownership, are worth bearing in mind.”
“That point was made by several stakeholders who gave us useful briefings in advance of the debate. If the bill is to deliver on the needs of our communities, it should set a lower threshold that people can all understand. If thresholds were to be reduced to 500 hectares, that would keep all crofts and 97 per cent of farms outwith the scope of the bill but could be transformative. A key point that Rhoda Grant made in her opening remarks, which was then made by Mercedes Villalba, Ben Macpherson and Michael Matheson, was about the need for a public interest test. That is crucial, because people know what a public interest test is, it has legal precedence and provides greater protection to family farms.”
“There can be a power imbalance that leaves landowners, and not the community, the key local decision-takers.” We all need to work together so that, when we get to stage 3, we have pushed the bill forward and strengthened it. That will take a lot of work, but we are willing to work with the Scottish Government to do that. There is an appetite around the chamber for it, so let us get on with it. One change for which we want to push is a lower threshold to define a large landholding. We also want to ensure that all thresholds across the bill are aligned. A majority of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee agrees with the principle that the threshold for community engagement obligations for mainland estates is set too high at 3,000 hectares.”
“The bill needs to go further if we are to change land ownership patterns. As Rhoda Grant rightly said in her opening speech, the purpose of land reform is to empower communities, build economies and retain populations. Stakeholders are disappointed that what is currently in the bill will not deliver the change that our communities need. There is a really important bit in the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s report that is worth restating: “It is clear that in much of rural Scotland, a lack of available land is a serious impediment to economic development, local services, affordable housing and other quality-of-life issues. Put simply, the scarcity of useful land stops some communities flourishing.”
“It has been a really good debate. For Scottish Labour, land reform is in our DNA. It has been part of our identity since the Crofters Party was involved in the creation of our party. Scottish Labour will vote for the general principles of the bill at stage 1 but, on the basis of the evidence that was given to the committee, we believe that it must be improved. In her opening speech, the cabinet secretary spoke positively about the importance of land reform but, as members across the chamber mentioned, after 17 years of SNP Government, land ownership concentration is getting worse. The statistic that less than 1 per cent of Scotland’s population still own 67 per cent of Scotland’s rural land should make us reflect. The comments by Mercedes Villalba, Kevin Stewart and Monica Lennon need to be reflected on.”
“The Edinburgh health and social care partnership has been making good progress on delayed discharge. There was real concern about the situation on delayed discharge in Edinburgh, compared with the situation in other local authority areas, but there has been a significant improvement in that regard. The funding behind all of that is important, which is why the Parliament supported the provision of such funding. Rural Affordable Homes for Key Workers Fund 5.”
“I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. We know that there is a housing emergency in Edinburgh and that there are huge pressures on the health and social care budget. At what point will the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the huge increase in the population of, and the pressures on, Edinburgh are not going away and that our constituents are being let down by the Government? Shona Robison: In order to support the affordable housing supply programme, we provided a massive increase in the capital allocation for affordable housing in the budget, which Sarah Boyack did not vote for. We also provided a massive increase in funding for health and social care. That is not to say that there are no challenges in social care—we absolutely acknowledge that there are challenges.”
“The experience of the necessary closure of the eye pavilion is an example of where there has been better communication, both through the Government and through the health board, to patients and to MSPs. I was involved in the site visit to the eye pavilion with Sarah Boyack and others so that there was transparency as to the necessity of that decision having to be taken. It is not just me saying that we should not underestimate the impact that poor communication can have on patients and their families; that is what the interim inquiry report says. We must take that seriously. Where there are improvements to be made, we will continue to look at them, including by learning lessons from live cases such as the one that Sarah Boyack raises.”
“What lessons will be learned from the experience at the sick kids hospital? The cabinet secretary said that the impact of unclear or poor communication on the wellbeing of parents, patients and their families during a difficult, emotional and uncertain period in their lives is not to be underestimated. I am thinking, in particular, about the design of the new eye pavilion in Lothian. It has been approved, but the existing eye pavilion is shut and it will be years before it is replaced. What lessons will need to be learned on patient support and communications, and then on the design of the new hospital, so that it is built on time and is safe for patients, staff and families from the day that it is ready? Neil Gray: That is critical.”
“The Prime Minister announced that, as part of a major intervention, the National Wealth Fund will provide £200 million of investment for new, future opportunities for Grangemouth. We understand that the funds from the National Wealth Fund will consider only investable propositions and that moneys will be provided on a co-investment basis. Timescales will be determined by those factors. I hope that Sarah Boyack accepts that both Governments take seriously the task of finding solutions for the future and for the here and now. The Presiding Officer: Question 8 has been withdrawn. There will be a brief suspension before we move to the next item of business. 11:58 Meeting suspended. 12:00 On resuming— First Minister’s Question Time Nicola Sturgeon 1.”
“Given that we now have a financial commitment to invest from the Scottish Government and £200 million from the UK Government’s National Wealth Fund, what is the timescale for getting new projects over the line, so that we see the new jobs that we need being created using the infrastructure in Grangemouth? Alasdair Allan: As Sarah Boyack has said, there has been investment by both Governments. On 18 February, the First Minister announced to the Parliament that the Scottish Government would lodge a stage 3 amendment to the budget bill for “£25 million to establish a Grangemouth just transition fund”,—[Official Report, 18 February 2025; c 32.] which will expedite near-term propositions in the here and now.”
“There has been nothing like the action that is needed to tackle the housing emergency that we now have in Scotland or to create more affordable social housing and address the issue of thousands of empty homes.”
“Willie Rennie talked about jobs. Last week was apprenticeship week. That was a massive missed opportunity to give people in our communities jobs and make people’s homes energy efficient. That is underperformance. Kevin Stewart: Will Sarah Boyack give way on that point? Sarah Boyack: No. As I said, I am responding to the debate. I will move on to respond to the speech of the cabinet secretary, who opened the debate. There was lots of talk about what could be done. For example, there was talk about housing. Way more could be done on housing. We saw that in the UK budget—£3.1 billion is to be spent on affordable housing. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.”
“The warm homes scheme had delivered only just over 14,000 installations by the end of 2023-24, yet 861,000 households are deemed to be in fuel poverty. Way more could be done. Could legislation fix that? Kevin Stewart: Will Sarah Boyack take an intervention? Sarah Boyack: No—I am about to respond to Patrick Harvie’s points. On 8 March, it was a year since the consultation on the heat in buildings bill closed, but the bill has still not been published. It would be good to get a timescale for that, as well as for the energy strategy and just transition plan. We need action and investment. However, this year, despite getting £5.2 billion extra, the SNP cut the energy efficiency and decarbonisation budget by just under 5 per cent in real terms. There was the £47 million that could have been used to create jobs in our communities.”
“We are capping the amount that can be deducted from universal credit payments while people repay short-term loans and debts, which will save 1.2 million of the poorest families in the UK an average of £420 a year. The Labour Government is taking targeted measures in the energy sector and to support households. More than half of Scottish homes do not meet energy efficiency standards and are below recommended levels. Energy and heat are being wasted, which pushes people’s bills up—they are paying for heat that they should not have to pay for. We should better insulate our homes and use renewable energy solutions such as solar or heat pumps, which would impact on people’s bills. The Scottish Government has the power to do that. Insulating homes should be at the heart of tackling the issue.”
“I heard Ben Macpherson’s speech, and I might come back to it. The review of Ofgem is encouraging it to champion our consumers. There is also a focus on community renewables and community benefits, and on enabling renewables in England. Other critical issues that Labour has pursued include increasing the state pension rate, retaining the triple lock and increasing the living wage. We have also had this week’s announcement about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will enable households that are experiencing the effects of new or upgraded energy transmission infrastructure to get discounts on their bills. Those are practical measures. I want to finish on this one. Douglas Lumsden: Will Sarah Boyack take an intervention? Sarah Boyack: No.”
“This has been a really important debate on how we can best help the people of Scotland with their bills, but we need to ensure that every Government is doing the maximum that it can to impact on those bills. As Paul O’Kane, Foysol Choudhury and my colleague Mark Griffin said, the SNP Government can blame the UK Government all it wants, but there are many powers that it could use to make tangible differences to the cost of living crisis, and it has been in power for 18 years. Meanwhile, Labour has been in power for just over eight months, and we are starting to make a difference. The comprehensive review of Ofgem is empowering it to facilitate growth and innovation and to become a stronger champion. Ben Macpherson: Will the member take an intervention? Sarah Boyack: I am responding to the debate.”
“That has effectively added four percentage points on to the council tax bill. It is little wonder that the SNP won the recent Kilmarnock North by-election—when Mr Sarwar came down to make a cameo appearance during the campaign. With a fixed budget each year, we have to do the best that we can with what we have and to offer hope to our people that their SNP Government will help, when the unionist Labour and Tory parties contrive to attack our most vulnerable citizens instead. We have done this. I am proud of what the SNP has achieved in office, and I look forward to the day when we no longer need to mitigate the worst excesses of a failed, money-grabbing, broken union. I am delighted to support the SNP Government motion. 15:22”
“As usual, I am indebted to my East Ayrshire SNP councillors and some independent colleagues there for delivering the same kind of support directly to their communities in the council’s recent budget. The council has £1 million going in to support its anti-poverty and inequality strategy, with emphasis on affordable and accessible food. There are free school meals for all P1 to P7 children down there, plus half-price school meals for secondary pupils for the next two years. Clothing grants are going up to £75. All of that was opposed by the rump of Labour councillors down there, who are left with their assortment of allies tagging on in desperation. The council could have done much more had it not been for Labour’s national insurance tax hike, which cost East Ayrshire £2.75 million.”
“Talking of the Scottish child payment, it supports every eligible child in Scotland to the tune of £26.70 a week and has been described as a “game changer” in the fight to tackle child poverty in Scotland. We are helping to make our homes warmer and we will tackle fuel poverty, with £300 million going towards clean heating measures that will help to reduce bills. People on lower earnings can get help of up to £10,000 to heat their homes, and home owners can access grants of up to £15,000. They need a bit more help, as Willie Rennie pointed out, in making the correct choices that are appropriate for them, and trusted partners would be a great part of that. All of that is in the SNP budget, which is making a difference to the lives of people in my constituency and right across the country.”
“That might not be huge amount of money when we think about the energy bills that people are facing, but at least it is cash going to pensioners; it is not being taken from them by Labour’s soaring energy bills. The Scottish budget will also provide £3 billion to directly support vulnerable and low-income households to help them to deal with Labour’s cost of living crisis. We already provide more than £200 million each year, reversing Labour’s austerity measures that it decided to keep in place when the Tories left office. We have a council tax reduction scheme in place, which helps nearly half a million households, and we provide free school meals to all P1s to P5s—which will soon expand to P6s and P7s who receive the Scottish child payment.”
“Would the member like to comment on the £5.2 billion extra that the Scottish Government got in its budget this year and the £200 million that we got for Grangemouth that will help to keep jobs as well as create new ones as part of project willow? Willie Coffey: I would certainly like to comment. The member describes that money as if it is some kind of handout or gift, but that is Scottish taxpayers’ money that is coming back to where it belongs. That money does not belong to the UK Government: it is Scottish taxpayers’ money. What has the SNP done to help? For a start, the Scottish budget will help millions of households across Scotland. One thing that will make a big difference is the new pension age winter heating payment. Every pensioner household will receive £100 next winter, with some receiving £200 or £300.”
“I can also mention forestry—in relation to which we have the most ambitious woodland creation targets in the United Kingdom—farming reform, and many other areas where progress is being made. As I said, the Scottish Government is committed to the 2045 target, and the next climate change plan is being developed to ensure that we get there.”
“When the Scottish Government dropped its annual and interim targets, Màiri McAllan announced a package of 19 reheated old policies to show that the Scottish Government is supposedly taking action. However, I have received a response to a freedom of information request in which the Scottish Government admits that only four of the 19 policies have been delivered, and that even some of those are questionable. Can the minister outline the measurable actions that are being taken now? Our constituents cannot afford our missing the 2045 target, given the impact on their lives and businesses. Alasdair Allan: I can certainly list measurable activities in many areas, such as peatland restoration, where good progress is being made, with more than 75,000 hectares having been restored to date.”
“I move amendment S6M-16657.2, to leave out from “rejects” to end and insert: “recognises the huge potential, and progress made, in Scotland to develop renewable energy generation capacity; considers that Scotland has a future as a renewables powerhouse and that this will help with the long-term ambitions to decarbonise Scotland’s energy usage; acknowledges that, to successfully transition to low- and zero-carbon energy sources and deliver energy security, it will require a sustainable generation baseline; considers that nuclear energy is therefore an essential part of the future energy mix, as a highly efficient, zero-emissions source of energy that generates over 20% of the electricity consumed in Scotland; notes that Torness nuclear power station directly supports hundreds of jobs, as well as many more in the wider economy in the region, and welcomes the decision to extend its lifespan; welcomes the support from the UK Government for the next generation of nuclear energy technology and the development of small modular reactors; regrets that Scotland will miss out on these investment and job opportunities due to the Scottish Government’s opposition to new nuclear energy projects, and calls on it to end its outdated ideological opposition to small modular reactors.” 15:40”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: You were told that you had seven minutes. Sarah Boyack: Okay—I apologise. The power that the site has provided to Scotland has meant that we avoided 146 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions. Should we not be delivering a low-carbon future? Ed Miliband clearly wants to work with the Scottish Government to deliver our clean power mission, and Anas Sarwar said today that we should welcome the support from the UK Government for the next generation of nuclear energy technology so that Scotland does not miss out. Let us have a joined-up approach. Let the Scottish Government deliver the leadership that our renewables industry urgently needs, and let us look at a sustainable baseline of power. We urgently need a change of direction—let us get on with it.”
“In addition, we might think of the benefits for construction. We need to decarbonise our homes and buildings and our industrial sector, but we should do so in a way that supports workers and ensures that they have jobs now and in the future. That is what we need to benefit our local communities, but it is clear today that that is not what the SNP is planning for. The SNP wants an argument, but— while that approach was very successful for the first 20 minutes of this debate—we need to work together, because these are long-term decisions. We welcome the extension of Torness’s lifespan to 2028, which will keep those skilled, well-paid and unionised jobs in our local communities. Sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer—I see that the light is flashing. I was told that I had nine minutes.”
“If we ruled out projects that did not deliver on time, the Scottish Government would have some major challenges. Moreover, the development of SMRs is a game changer—they are now a real option, and they are more economic and will deliver on-going reliable electricity as we go forward. As the Labour amendment says, nuclear and renewables are not mutually exclusive—they are complementary parts of Scotland having a fossil fuel-free energy mix into the future. If we do not take up that challenge, we will miss out economically. Our European neighbours have 12 nuclear plants at planning stages; we have none. We have one nuclear power station left in Scotland, at Torness. Our workers on that site have kept the lights on and powered our country since the 1980s, and they deserve a future and a fair, just transition.”
“When I talk to people up in the north-east and look across the country at who can get insurance for their homes and buildings, it is clear that there are issues that we need to deal with. It has to be a fair transition, which is why nuclear has to be part of the process. It is a highly efficient, zero-emissions source of energy that generates more than 20 per cent of the electricity that we currently consume and provides high-skilled, well-paid reliable jobs that generate income in those communities with a power plant. There are absolutely lessons to be learned. I very much agree on the failures that we have seen down south over the past decade from the Tory Government with regard to nuclear power stations and rising costs, but we need to learn from those experiences and not rule out the tech on principle.”
“We need a sustainable generation baseline and, in our view, nuclear has to be part of the future energy mix. It is highly efficient— Douglas Lumsden: Will the member take an intervention? Sarah Boyack: If it is brief. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Douglas Lumsden, briefly. Douglas Lumsden: Thank you—I will be brief. On energy security, do you not feel that it is better that we actually produce our own gas, rather than rely on imports? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Through the chair, always. Sarah Boyack: The thing is that we are going to have our oil and gas for decades to come, and we need a joined-up approach. For example, there is floating wind energy where offshore oil and gas is being produced, but we have to take responsibility with regard to the climate emergency, which is hitting our constituents now.”
“Alasdair Allan: The member mentions safety. I merely ask whether she would be content to have a nuclear waste repository in her constituency. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, Ms Boyack. Sarah Boyack: Well actually, just next door to my constituency we have Torness nuclear power station, which has been operating for decades. The key issue is safe waste. In fact, the issue that people usually raise with me is waste in our waters and on our beaches, so we need to tackle waste across our society. To go back to my point, Labour’s amendment is clear that we need to maximise the contribution of low-carbon energy technology, and in order to transition successfully to low and zero carbon energy sources, we need to deliver energy security.”
“Apart from name checking renewables, the SNP motion is negative—it ignores the contribution that is currently made by the nuclear sector and is in denial about the opportunities that that could deliver. It is a retrograde motion. I do not pretend that the world has not had nuclear safety issues historically, but safety standards are now internationally agreed and based on experience, and are at the heart of the design of new small modular reactors. It is vital that standards are met, with monitoring and well- trained management and staff, and that safety is fundamental to the operation of nuclear power stations. Should historical safety concerns mean that we rule out the contribution that nuclear power can make? Alasdair Allan: Will the member take an intervention? Sarah Boyack: I would be delighted to take an intervention on that point.”
“Fergus Ewing: With regard to communities benefiting, does Sarah Boyack agree that the ideal would be communities not getting a cheque for £5,000 per megawatt per annum, but having a share of—a stake in—the ownership, and that the Governments in Scotland and the UK should be working together to deliver that? Sarah Boyack: That is exactly the principle behind the establishment of Great British Energy and the local power plan, working with the Scottish Government and—crucially—with our local councils, too, because they are in touch with communities on the ground. I agree that having a share, or ownership, is crucial, but it is not an option for a lot of communities. Finally, I even wondered whether, today, we would see the publication of the Scottish Government’s long-awaited energy and just transition plan, but no.”