Alex Cole-Hamilton
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“I am sure that all members will join me in expressing solidarity with Scotland’s Muslim community after the brutal and unprovoked attacks on the streets of Edinburgh last weekend. That community’s response to those attacks has not been one of violence or revenge; it has been to make a plea for tolerance and understanding.”
“All told, more than 1,400 inmates have been let out of prison since the early release scheme began, and that is because our prisons are bursting at the seams. However, that is not a strategy and it will not protect the public.”
“Let that sink in, because the language of displacement and othering is the antithesis of the cohesion that Lord Offord speaks about so regularly. Liberals believe in reform—of course we do. The Whig Government in 1832— Amanda Bland: Will the member take an intervention? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I will give way to Amanda Bland.”
“This was an opportunity for Reform to prove everybody wrong and to pepper the chamber this afternoon with speeches that were measured in tone and full of bright ideas to fix the things that are wrong in Scotland. We have heard none of that today.”
“I welcome the minister’s remarks about the Edinburgh attacks. Does he recognise, as do members on these benches, that as well as expressing solidarity with the Muslim community of Scotland, we owe them a debt of gratitude that there was no call for activism and action on the streets of Scotland by the Muslim community?”
“That is why the Government is prioritising an economy with a strength that is felt by people, businesses and communities across Scotland. Scotland is a great place and, collectively, we are making it even greater.”
The complete record
Every one of 814 lines we hold for Alex Cole-Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 17.
“Family after family have been let down by the Crown Office. I pay tribute to those who are represented in the gallery today, and I thank them for their bravery and persistence. Year after year, we have been told that things will improve and that changes will be made, but there are still unforgivable and agonisingly long waits for those families, adding to the torment that they are suffering. Why not ask the independent review of the FAI system to consider removing the responsibility from the Crown Office altogether and moving it into a separate system, learning from the coroners elsewhere in the UK? Surely the cabinet secretary can see that the Crown Office has shown itself to be incapable of handling the issue. Angela Constance: I appreciate that Mr Cole- Hamilton has very specific and strong views on the matter.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect; I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Cole- Hamilton. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“I advise members that, at this point, we have a fair bit of time in hand, so there is plenty of time for interventions and for colleagues to develop their arguments. 15:59”
“Innovation is not in short supply; there is lots of it in our health service. What we lack is the delivery and execution of such innovation. There seems to be a constipation, or a fear of delivery, which we need to break through. There is low-hanging fruit there, and relatively quick fixes can make a huge difference. Let us make use of the technology that exists and grasp the technology of tomorrow. Let us back our brightest minds, invest in cutting-edge research and embrace creative solutions to the problems that we face. The tools are there, and so is the talent. Now it is time for the political will and, more importantly, the delivery to match that will. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate.”
“That is not the fault of our hard-working NHS practitioners or our care staff; it is just a constipation in the delivery of the technology. Paul Sweeney: Mr Cole-Hamilton makes an interesting point about NHS staff. My experience of interactions with NHS clinicians is that they have plenty of ideas for continuous improvement and making innovations in the system, but they are not listened to. Often there is no culture of organisational improvement in health boards, which is a real source of frustration, burnout and demoralisation. Does Mr Cole-Hamilton agree that that is often a factor in people in the system feeling burnt out? Alex Cole-Hamilton: As he typically does, Paul Sweeney makes a good point. He speaks to a frustration that exists right across the NHS, in every directorate and in every department.”
“For example, I remember raising in the chamber the case of a woman who had been referred to the dental hospital with suspected mouth cancer. She presented me with a letter that had printed on it the date of its dictation, which was three months before the letter was typed up. We are still using technology from the 1970s. Those bits of paper are passed between patients and medical teams, getting lost on the way. Sometimes, for example, the use of a broken fax machine can mean patient care being delayed. That is right—a fax machine. The NHS must be the only arm of our public services that still uses those outdated and obsolete technologies. Patients and staff alike are fed up with the day-to-day friction that is caused by a startling lack of innovation.”
“I need not remind members that we live in an increasingly hostile world, where the online cyberlandscape is the new battlefield. New technologies present us with a real opportunity, and Liberal Democrats want to see us seizing that. To do so, we need real leadership. Agreements such as those enabling the health and transformation partnership and the work of the accelerated national innovation adoption pathway are steps in the right direction. I am pleased that the Government is now considering that approach and taking it seriously. I am also glad that, later this year, we will see the introduction of the NHS app, which we heard about earlier in the debate. Right now, our systems are outdated and rely on bits of paper. All members see that in our weekly surgeries.”
“To give another example, the system developed through the GEMINI project—Grampian’s evaluation of Mia in an innovative national breast screening initiative—has boosted breast cancer detection rates by 10 per cent. Such technologies are already making a difference, and they are saving lives. We need to embrace them if we are to shift our NHS from being a reactive service that is constantly in crisis mode to a proactive one. We also need to make NHS tech more robust across the board. Cyberattacks on our health service, particularly those carried out through ransomware, have cost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds. A stronger, smarter electronic infrastructure would not only prevent such attacks but make the entire system more efficient and secure.”
“If we want to move forward, we need to back innovation—not cut it off at the knees. AI is not just an idea for the future; it is delivering results today. For example, in Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust’s area, machine learning was used to cut did-not-attend rates and fill last-minute cancellation slots, thereby preventing nearly 600 wasted appointments in that small region of the country alone. Imagine what that could mean for the Scottish NHS: fewer missed appointments, shorter waiting lists, and more time spent giving patients the care that they deserve, in the time that they deserve to have it. We have already seen the potential.”
“It is clear that we need action, investment and leadership to drive the next generation of medical breakthroughs and reform a national health service that has been operating in crisis mode for years. Scotland’s medical technology sector is thriving, with more than 250 companies employing more than 9,000 people. It is growing at an impressive 8 per cent a year, against market conditions that we know all too well. However, while the industry moves forward, our NHS remains stuck in the past. It is slow to adapt and is being held back by outdated systems that do not speak to each other and a Government that is too risk averse to embrace change. We should be leading the way, but instead we are still lagging behind. That has not been helped by the UK Government’s cancellation of £500 million in AI research funding.”
“Forgive me, Presiding Officer. I missed the time that you said I had. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I said a generous four minutes. We have quite a bit of time in hand. Alex Cole-Hamilton: A generous four minutes. That is very kind of you. Thank you. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in this important debate. I am grateful to Neil Gray and the Scottish Government for making time for the debate this afternoon. Scotland has always been a nation of medical pioneers. From the discovery of penicillin to the invention of the hypodermic syringe, we have a proud history of innovation that has saved millions upon millions of lives. Although we are rightly proud of our history, we must not lose focus on where we are heading.”
“I have an interest in a hospital project that my constituents will want to have confidence in, which is the new Monklands hospital in my constituency. I believe that the process that we have established through NHS Scotland assure, without waiting for the conclusion of the inquiries, gives me, Parliament and the public greater assurance that lessons have been learned from the Edinburgh and Glasgow situations and that we can ensure that buildings will come forward in a timeous, safe and effective way.”
“Looking towards those projects, will the cabinet secretary outline what lessons have been learned from the Scottish hospitals inquiry, so that we do not find ourselves in a similar position further down the line? Neil Gray: There are two elements to Alex Cole-Hamilton’s question. First, he makes the point that the feeling at the time was that the delays were unnecessary. The interim findings demonstrate that the delays were necessary and that it was the right decision to delay the opening of the hospital. The difficulties experienced at that time due to the poor communications may have led to the feeling that the delays were unnecessary, and I recognise Alex Cole- Hamilton’s reflections on that. The second point is about our confidence in new hospitals. Alex Cole-Hamilton named some projects.”
“Lord Brodie’s interim report provides us with an important opportunity to reflect on the lessons learned. I am pleased that we now have a clearer understanding of what happened at the Royal hospital for children and young people. At the time, many of my constituents were deeply concerned by the delays and confusion relating to the opening of that new facility in Edinburgh. For those who were affected, all that was unnecessary and added an extra layer of stress at already difficult times. As the cabinet secretary will be aware, a number of hospitals will require renewal and replacement in the coming years, including the Belford hospital in Fort William and the Gilbert Bain hospital in Shetland.”
“I will conclude by challenging the suggestion that is falsely implied in the motion—that trans people want to use spaces such as toilets or changing rooms to abuse or harass women and girls. We know, and empirical evidence tells us, that, by any metric, by far the biggest threat to the safety of women and girls comes not from the trans community, but from predatory men. I think that our parliamentary time this afternoon would have been far better spent addressing that urgent reality. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate and back-bench speeches of up to six minutes. I call Pam Gosal, who will, in fact, have five minutes, as has been agreed with the party business manager. 15:30”
“Indeed, the Conservative motion seeks to reverse the progress that we have made for our trans constituents in this area, and to take us back to a time when they were stigmatised and ostracised in our society. If we followed it through to its natural conclusion—that toilets and changing rooms should always be biological single-sex-only spaces—who would police that? How would someone ascertain the biological sex at birth of a trans person who was seeking to use a changing room in John Lewis or a toilet in a garden centre or a high school? There is no policy that the Parliament could enact that would satisfy the movers of the motion and would not, ultimately, be confusing or cause far greater upset.”
“Therefore, provision was made for them in the articles of the Equality Act 2010. Crucially, as we have heard, that legislation also allowed organisations and public bodies to exclude trans people from single-sex spaces, when to do so represents “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. That legal phrasing was deliberately left open to allow flexibility in the application of the law in places in our society where the complexities around the provision of single-sex spaces require such flexibility, and the courts have backed that up. I know that many people—some of whom will be watching today’s debate—have questions and even some concerns, but agreeing to the motion is not how we should go about giving them comfort.”
“Realistically, change will be brought about only by going back to first principles, fostering consensus and working across the four nations of these islands to make sure that there are no cross- border barriers to mutual acceptance. I turn to the substance of the motion. The debate about single-sex spaces and who can use them is not a new one. For most of history, trans and non-binary people were viewed by the state through the lens of the biological sex that had been assigned to them at birth. That meant that they could not use public services or public spaces freely, which the courts rightly regarded as a fundamental breach of their human rights. Not unreasonably, they concluded that trans people need to recover from operations in hospital, try on new clothes or go to the toilet when shopping in town.”
“I am talking about things such as birth certificates and death certificates. I am talking about the dignity of having who you are acknowledged by the state in the documents that you are legally required to hold. However, after 10 years of operation, it became apparent that the gender recognition regime was flawed, as it was overly intrusive and traumatic for those who went through the process. There was a time when the Parliament was united in understanding the need for that regime to be reformed. For Liberal Democrats, the question of how we can take a humane approach to gender recognition remains unanswered, but the heat and the division that have engulfed the issue mean that to press on would serve only to harm the people whom we are trying to help. So, we are not looking to relitigate the issue.”
“In times past, that would have brought feelings of self-loathing and massive stigma in a society that feared them or refused to believe that they existed at all. Our role as parliamentarians is to legislate and to govern for all our constituents, especially those who are in any kind of distress or who are likely to be marginalised in any way. That is not an obsession—it is our duty and our job. Across our family of nations, we have taken big strides to recognise and protect the rights of our trans constituents. Because the issue has been mentioned, I want to touch briefly on gender recognition. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 finally allowed trans people to have their gender recognised and recorded by the state in the legal architecture that underpins their lives.”
“Those commitments are rooted in evidence and stem from the same understanding and principles that gave rise to the original gender recognition act—the Gender Recognition Act 2004—and the relevant aspects of the Equality Act 2010. That understanding stems from the reality that, for the vast majority of people, biological sex at birth matches their gender through life: a person is born a boy and they grow up to live as a man, or they are born a girl and they grow up to live as a woman. However, for a tiny proportion of the population, that is simply not true—they come to understand that their gender and their biological sex at birth are not the same and they feel as though they have been born into the wrong body.”
“In the time that I have, I will lay out the position of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in respect of the Scottish Conservative Party motion that is before Parliament today. Let me say at the outset that my party is wholly committed to the safety of women and girls, and to tackling the violence and abuse that they still face all too often. However, we are not persuaded that the Conservative motion would deliver progress towards that. Brian Whittle: Will the member take an intervention? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I must make some progress, I fear. The area of policy that we are debating this afternoon is one in which my party has long-held commitments.”
“However, the chief constable is responsible for policing and is accountable to the Scottish Police Authority for that and not to Scottish ministers. The EHRC’s technical guidance for schools sets out clear advice and guidance on the provisions of the 2010 act as they apply to schools in relation to the provision of education and access to benefits, facilities or services, both educational and non- educational. It provides authoritative, comprehensive and technical guidance to the detail of the law.”
“The Scottish Prison Service issued operational guidance in February 2024 to support implementation of the management of transgender people in custody policy, which was published in December 2023. That guidance is to ensure that the rights and needs of transgender people are protected, while ensuring a safe and inclusive environment for everyone in the care of the SPS and those who work for it. Police Scotland is conducting a review of sex and gender, with an aim to improve the terminology, recording practices and use of sex and gender across the organisation. The review aims to achieve an outcome that is consistent with inclusivity, legal obligations and operational requirements, and that respects individuals’ rights and dignity.”
“Some powers have been given to Scottish ministers under the 2010 act, such as the public sector duty regarding socioeconomic inequalities and specific duties enabling the better performance of the public sector equality duty. However, key provisions of the 2010 act on matters such as discrimination and on the various protected characteristics, such as sex and gender assignment, are reserved. Public sector bodies in Scotland are responding to their obligations under the 2010 act. NHS Scotland provides guidance through the charter of patients’ rights and responsibilities. The charter was last updated in 2022 and is required to be updated every five years, with the next scheduled update taking place in 2027.”
“The Scottish Government has answered those questions in full and, each time that they have been raised, we have reminded the Conservatives that the 2010 act is largely reserved and that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is responsible for its enforcement. It is the responsibility of all public bodies in Scotland to interpret and comply with the 2010 act. That is the law. We welcome the role of the EHRC in producing codes of practice and guidance for public bodies in Scotland to help them to navigate their statutory obligations under the 2010 act. That includes a guide for separate and single-sex service providers. The guidance also states that organisations might need to consider the impact of other legislation such as the legal requirements for health and safety in workplaces.”
“Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the Equality Act 2010 came from a recognition that vast swathes of minorities in our communities were facing violations of their human rights and regular abuse, and that it was a necessary act that has functioned well? Shirley-Anne Somerville: Alex Cole-Hamilton is right to point to the basis of the legislation, the reasons why it was introduced and why it remains just as important now as it was at its introduction. I repeat the message that we have made before, which is that the Scottish Government strongly supports the separate and single-sex exemptions in the 2010 act. Over the past few weeks, the Scottish Conservatives have asked multiple questions in the Parliament in relation to single-sex spaces.”
“Drug services have raised that problem with me, too. It is right that the people’s panel is pushing for progress, because the level of funding certainty has a direct impact—there is a correlation with the quality and experience of the practitioners who staff our services. It is also right that the panel has added weight to the calls to divert those who are caught in possession of drugs for personal use—people who are struggling with personal drug use—away from the criminal justice system, and away from prisons, which are awash with substances. I thank the panel members for their time and their contribution.”
“Many people with lived experience are expected to work on a voluntary basis, despite the reported high level of success that they are having in helping people. That situation often leads to burnout. These people, whose knowledge and understanding of the issues cannot be replaced, are highly motivated to make a difference in the lives of others. It speaks to their character, and we lose them from the sector at our peril. In the battle against drug deaths, we need to empower all those who are battling to save lives. That includes many voluntary organisations that do such vital work. Life-saving services are constantly under threat or worry that their funding might be cut. Funding is often guaranteed for only a matter of months, and that lack of stability has an impact on staff, recruitment and service users.”
“I have long been a supporter of citizens assemblies, which would operate in a similar fashion to the people’s panel, so I would like to see more of this good practice. The report includes some sensible recommendations, which I support. The panel made an important point about the need for fair pay for those with lived experience who are working in the drug and alcohol field. Their pay and conditions are not equivalent to those of other public sector workers. That is a critical oversight, and we will see people burn out as a result of that. It is vital that their significant and invaluable contribution is recognised in their remuneration and that they are given security of employment.”
“My party also continues to be committed to measures that will improve public safety and save lives. Those include the roll-out of naloxone; like Audrey Nicoll, I am one of the MSPs who attended the training session on naloxone delivery, and I carry it in my briefcase and in my car. Those measures also include drug-checking facilities, heroin assisted treatment and diverting people who are caught in possession of drugs for personal use away from prison and towards help. I now turn to the people’s panel’s report on reducing drug deaths and drug harm. I echo others’ thanks to the panel. It is an innovative approach. We have used it before, but we do not use it enough in this Parliament, so I am glad to see it.”
“The member will be aware that, as a result of Liberal Democrat research—this is why the impact of drugs has been such a key focus for the Liberal Democrats in this year’s budget negotiations—we also know that, since 2017, at least 1,500 babies have been born with neonatal abstinence syndrome. They have been born addicted to drugs, showing signs of addiction through uncontrolled distress, crying, blotchy skin and uncontrollable shaking, because their mothers were taking legally or illegally prescribed drugs during their pregnancy. Investment totalling £2.6 million will now go towards helping and comforting those babies once they are born. This is personal for me—it is why I am in politics. When I was a youth worker, I saw just how important such interventions are and how effective they can be. I am in this place to support them.”
“Does he agree that, in order to provide those, we need to understand what the problem is? We still do not seem to understand why Scotland is such an outlier. Alex Cole-Hamilton: That is certainly part of it, but we know—through the work of the task force and of the drugs agencies and charities—that the problem is linked to poverty and unresolved childhood trauma; in some communities, drug use is a rite of passage. Work is still needed to better understand the problem. Nevertheless, there are particularly Scottish solutions to this particular Scottish problem.”
“It has been a great debate so far. It is rare that the Parliament speaks with such consensus, but we all want to strive for success in the matter. As we all know, Scotland has the invidious claim to have by far the highest drug-related death rate in Europe. We have heard the statistics: 1,172 people died in 2023 alone. Each of them was a son, a daughter, a brother or a sister, and each death was a tragedy. That is why Liberal Democrats are committed to treating Scotland’s drug deaths crisis as the public health emergency that it is and, if needs be, appealing to Westminster to devolve to the Scottish Parliament the powers that are necessary for tailored, Scotland-specific solutions for what is clearly a particularly Scottish problem. Brian Whittle: The member says that we need specifically tailored responses to a Scottish problem.”
“Although we recognise the scale of the challenge that is before us, we remain determined. The commitment from members across the chamber in addressing the challenge is clear, and we will continue to act decisively, compassionately and with a clear focus on delivering real change. 15:51”
“We are also allocating £2.3 million to support the Thistle centre safer consumption facility. That adds to the significant investment over the past four years, giving me confidence that we will meet the national mission commitment of £250 million of additional funding over five years. However, transforming services and embedding new practices and approaches to tackling drug deaths requires not just increased investment or even structural changes, but a fundamental shift in culture across the whole of society, including through the justice system, as Audrey Nicoll mentioned in her speech. It is an area where the participative approach of the people’s panel has added a unique, valuable contribution, and we are committed to addressing its recommendations over this period.”
“That situation demands continuous vigilance and an enhanced response, and we are working closely with our counterparts across the UK to address evolving drug trends. We cannot afford complacency. I recognise that delivering change requires sustained investment, which is why the proposed funding for alcohol and drugs has been increased by £2.5 million, bringing our total proposed funding, including health board baseline funding, to more than £160 million. The increase in funding will support work on alcohol and drugs, and will allow us to go further and build on the national mission. The budget will provide more than £112 million for alcohol and drug partnerships, £13 million for grass-roots organisations funded through the Corra Foundation, and continued investment in residential rehabilitation.”
“We have started consulting with stakeholders to shape the next phase—one that builds on our progress, remains rooted in evidence and is flexible enough to address emerging challenges. That plan will be shaped by those with lived and living experience to ensure that it reflects the realities on the ground. I will also seek to have cross-party discussions on that work so that we continue to lead the boldest possible response for the remainder of the mission and beyond. We are working in a challenging landscape. Alex Cole-Hamilton referenced one of the reasons for that. Indeed, the latest rapid action drug alerts and response surveillance report, in January, warns that the drug supply in Scotland remains “highly toxic and unpredictable, requiring ongoing vigilance and a heightened response”. Audrey Nicoll raised that concern, too.”
“Those workers whom I was able to meet in the Thistle—who were picked having gone through an interview with a panel of people with lived and living experience—are absolutely committed to responding to the challenges that we face. In my recent statement on the progress of the medication assisted treatment standards, I stated that change is happening and I stand by that. Over the past few months, I have met individuals and organisations driving that progress, and their dedication is clear. Access to treatment and support is improving and we will continue to work to ensure that services are responsive to the needs of those people who rely on them. As we approach the conclusion of the national mission in 2026, we are already looking ahead. Our work has not concluded.”
“Scotland is blessed with some of the hardest-working and most passionate drugs workers in the world, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to supporting them through knowledge and training. Does he recognise that they have a massive battle ahead of them, as we see an ever-increasing uptake of nitazenes and other synthetic opioids on our streets? Neil Gray: Alex Cole-Hamilton rightly points to the challenge that we face because of the diversification, toxicity and layering of drug availability across Scotland. I join him in paying tribute to those who work in our alcohol and drug partnerships, who are, as he said, remarkable.”
“Today, we remember the many people who have died and the many who fought to keep them alive, including our key workers and our health and care workers. Today, we remember all those who are still living with the pandemic’s cruel impact, and we wish comfort to those who grieve and those who still live and toil under its shadow. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business. Portfolio Question Time Net Zero and Energy, and Transport 14:48”
“All of us are, at some level, still recovering from the trauma of not being able to see or hug our loved ones, of not being able to attend their funerals when they passed away—as so many thousands sadly did—and of the disaster in our care homes. We all hope that we will never have to live through such an experience ever again, but in the Parliament, we need to deal with events as we find them, rather than how we would wish them to be. As such, we must be guided by the lessons of the previous pandemic when it comes to dealing with the next. There is a lot that can be said about our response to Covid—for better and for worse—and about the decisions that were made, the transparency of the decision making and the way in which rules were made and followed, but that discussion is not for now.”
“Indeed, it has pulled on every thread that makes up the fabric of our communities, dominating our health system and impacting on education and the economy. So many of our young people are still suffering under the long shadow of lockdown. That is borne out by the huge number who are still waiting for help with their mental health. Waiting times across our national health service have not improved, and 168,000 Scots are still living with the debilitating effect of what Covid can become. Adults and children alike are fighting against long Covid every day. Moreover, many of Scotland’s high streets are still empty compared with how they were before the pandemic.”
“My first memory of the threat that was posed to our country by Covid-19 is of the images that were broadcast on the evening news of primary school children passing around a basketball that was covered in chalk dust so that they could learn about viral transmission. Within a matter of days, we had gone from those cheerful and charming images to the Government commissioning the NHS Louisa Jordan and requisitioning private ice rinks to bolster mortuary capacity. I do not think that anyone in the chamber or in wider public life will ever forget the enormous impact that the pandemic had on all our lives, an impact that reverberates to this day. In some ways, it will always define part of us, just as it has defined our politics and our society for the past five years.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, as part of the cross-Government co-ordination of infrastructure, what discussions the finance secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding what consideration is given to national security in its infrastructure policy. (S6O-04391)”
“Scotland is well placed to lead on the energy transition of our world-class universities, engineering expertise and industrial base provide a strong foundation for advancing cutting-edge technologies. To truly harness those opportunities, the Scottish and UK Governments must go further and work together by ramping up investment in renewables, unlocking green jobs and creating a more prosperous and sustainable energy future. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 15:54”
“Any evaluation of nuclear power must be based on clear evidence, considering the full life cycle of a technology, from construction to decommissioning and long-term legacy. Currently, no small modular reactors are operational for power generation. With dozens of different designs under development worldwide, it remains impossible to conduct a fair and comprehensive assessment of their costs, environmental impacts and risks. The developers of SMRs or any other form of new nuclear power would need to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that their technology is effective, safe, clean and value for money, and that it carries with it the good wishes of their communities. Crucially, investment in research must not come at the expense of the renewables sector, which already delivers clean, cheaper and faster energy solutions.”
“The wind does not always blow; the sun does not always shine. To make the most of our vast renewable potential, we must invest in large- scale storage, as Martin Whitfield was right to highlight, including pumped hydro and battery technology. The tech exists—it is just not there at scale. Within that context, we must also consider the role of nuclear power. Scottish Liberal Democrats have always championed an evidence-based approach to decarbonising energy generation, which helps us to reach net zero while meeting Scotland’s energy needs safely and affordably. The same commitment to rigorous assessment must apply to all future energy technologies, including new generations of nuclear power.”
“In recent years, we have heard that wind farms are being paid hundreds of millions of pounds through constraint payments—constraint payments, Presiding Officer!—to switch off their turbines when the electricity that they are producing cannot be absorbed into the grid. That money is coming directly out of people’s pockets, simply because our infrastructure cannot keep up. At a time when people’s bills are soaring, that feels insane. We need to do better. We need a modern, smart grid that can handle variable renewable generation, connect Scotland’s energy production with the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe and integrate energy storage solutions. Without that, we will not be able to meet our energy security or affordability goals. Scotland’s energy future must also include expansion in energy storage.”
“Alex Cole-Hamilton: Fergus Ewing’s point is typically well made. He is right. There is a great deal of bureaucracy in this landscape. There is unnecessary delay, particularly around the upgrade of the grid. Our efforts to transmit that abundant energy need to be a national work of endeavour, which cannot be held back by the things that he has described. A major obstacle to the energy transition is Scotland’s grid. It was designed for a system that was dominated by large, centralised power stations. The future of energy, as we all know, is local, distributed and flexible. The failure to invest in that grid is already holding back renewables, as Fergus Ewing alluded to.”