Plenary, 04 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 4, 2004

Official Report 379KB pdf

---

Energy Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-788, in the name of Jim Wallace, on the Energy Bill, which is UK legislation, and one amendment to that motion.

Members will be aware that the Enterprise and Culture Committee considered a Sewel memorandum on the UK Energy Bill last week, when Allan Wilson and I set out the many reasons why we believe that the UK Energy Bill should be widely welcomed in Scotland. We also addressed the issue of just what is devolved, or executively devolved, and therefore part of the Sewel process. I regret that the amendment in the name of Chris Ballance means that that issue must be addressed again today.

Mr Ballance's amendment would have us believe that the Energy Bill as proposed will disadvantage the Scottish renewables industry and endanger our renewable energy targets. In fact, the clauses in the bill that deal with renewable energy in areas that are devolved are entirely supportive of the aspirations of the industry and the Executive. I will return to those in a moment.

Another part of the bill establishes the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements—BETTA. This is the first time that there will be such arrangements for the whole of Great Britain; at the moment, the status quo involves separate markets for Scotland and for England and Wales. I suspect that that is the focus of Mr Ballance's concerns.

Let me make two fundamental points. First, on the part of the bill that establishes BETTA, the matter is entirely reserved. It is not covered by the Sewel memorandum or the motion that we have lodged today. That is not a pedantic point. Because the matter is reserved, the UK Parliament does not require our consent in order to legislate to set up BETTA. If this Parliament declined to agree to the Sewel motion, we would lose the benefits to be had for renewable energy in devolved areas without making the slightest difference to the part of the bill that establishes BETTA.

Does the minister accept that that part has an extremely disadvantageous effect on devolved issues and is therefore relevant for this Parliament to debate?

I do not accept that for a moment. I will return to devolved issues in a moment but the amendment that Mr Ballance has lodged is fundamentally flawed because it claims that there will be a disadvantage to renewable energy.

I know that people have concerns about BETTA, so I will stress that the part of the Energy Bill that establishes BETTA is enabling. The matters that cause concern to the energy industry do not lie in the bill—even in those parts of it that deal with reserved matters. The bill simply allows BETTA to be established. Before the part that establishes BETTA can come into force next April, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets will have to resolve key issues such as transmission charging and connections for small generators before it issues a licence to the grid operator.

Therefore, even if this Parliament had and exercised powers to delay the BETTA legislation, it would just delay the establishment of a single British market for electricity. I remind members that that single market will be hugely helpful to Scottish electricity generators and renewables exporters. What the industry needs most is the best possible implementation of BETTA; what it needs least is any delay in the bill. However, as I have said, this Parliament has no powers in relation to BETTA, which is why Mr Ballance's amendment is wide of the mark.

We have the ability to influence the final content of the licence conditions and we also have very positive support for our renewable energy policy from our colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry. It was thanks to our representations and the support of the DTI that, last June, Ofgem abandoned proposals on zonal distribution charges under BETTA that would have disadvantaged the Scottish industry. That is the combination that we believe will resolve the outstanding issues favourably before BETTA comes into force. I reassure members of all parties that we will continue to give high priority to resolving those issues in a way that ensures that Scottish renewables producers are not disadvantaged in the new British market.

The Sewel motion deals with two main issues that relate to devolved matters or matters that are executively devolved to the Scottish ministers. The first is renewable energy and the second is nuclear decommissioning.

The bill contains provisions to establish renewable energy zones in the parts of the United Kingdom continental shelf that are beyond territorial waters. The forum for renewable energy development in Scotland, which I chair, is considering how to maximise the opportunities for Scottish scientists and Scottish companies to lead the next stage of the renewables revolution, in marine energy; wave, tide and deepwater offshore wind. In establishing the zones, the Energy Bill provides the necessary legal and planning framework to allow those technologies to be rolled out. That cannot come a moment too soon.

Legislative authority is reserved in the Electricity Act 1989, but the process of consenting to or refusing large generating plant onshore is executively devolved to the Scottish ministers, and the bill will extend the same executive devolution to waters further offshore. That is hugely important to us.

Another important matter is the provision to have the millions of pounds that Ofgem raised from the auction of certificates under the Scottish renewables obligation paid into the Scottish consolidated fund. The Scottish ministers can make budgetary provision that that money should be used only to promote renewable energy. That is extremely helpful to achieving our targets. Perhaps £4 million or £5 million a year for several years will be devoted to such promotional work. The bill will also extend the market in renewables obligation certificates to Northern Ireland, which is also helpful.

I know that Allan Wilson will say a fair bit about nuclear decommissioning when he responds to the debate. The nuclear decommissioning provisions are also to be welcomed. The bill will create a nuclear decommissioning authority, which will be accountable to UK and Scottish ministers, to oversee the decommissioning of public sector nuclear sites. The NDA will report to ministers in both Parliaments. It will have a statutory duty to have regard to the need to safeguard the environment and it will have key performance indicators on health, safety and the environment, for which it will be accountable. On the environment, the NDA will be accountable to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which will remain the regulator for waste management and discharges in Scotland.

On all those matters, reserved and devolved, and on renewables and dealing with nuclear waste, the Energy Bill will bring real benefits to Scotland. My response to Mr Ballance's intervention is that the provisions that relate to renewables create renewable energy zones offshore, allow money from auctioning certificates to be given to us to promote renewable energy and extend the market to Northern Ireland. Those are the devolved matters in the bill.

Will the minister give way?

I am happy to take Mr Morgan's intervention if the Presiding Officer permits me to.

If it is very quick, I will allow the intervention.

It will be quick. Does the minister think that the benefits to Scotland would be more enhanced if provisions about consultation were extended to the reprocessing of spent or irradiated nuclear fuel?

It is clear that the bill and the Sewel process address the matters for which powers have been devolved legislatively or executively. Fuel reprocessing is not executively or legislatively devolved, which is why the Sewel memorandum does not cover it. Therefore, neither the memorandum nor the bill includes such a consultation provision.

We are clear that, in co-operation with Westminster, we are seeking to make the most use of the devolved powers that we have through the bill, which is going through the Westminster Parliament. The bill will give us funds, access to the market and opportunities to promote renewable energy and to improve the disposal and management of nuclear waste for many years to come.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that those provisions in the Energy Bill that relate to devolved matters and those that confer executive powers and functions on the Scottish Ministers should be considered by the UK Parliament.

The reason for having a Scottish Parliament was to allow debate and decisions on matters that have a direct effect on Scotland. A decision to hand responsibility back to Westminster through a Sewel motion must be taken with careful and transparent deliberation.

If we rush to agree to the Sewel motion, serious issues in the UK Energy Bill may well be glossed over. How can we be assured that the minister is as concerned as we are about the strength of Scottish powers to influence decisions, especially in the light of the Government's response to Lord Gray of Contin's amendment, which would have required the secretary of state to gain the Scottish ministers' approval before issuing a direction to the proposed nuclear decommissioning authority? The Government's reply was:

"We could not require agreement to be reached as a result of consultation; otherwise, we would be involving joint powers, not consultation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, Grand Committee on the Energy Bill [HL], 20 January 2004; Vol 656, c GC259.]

Surely the Executive does not want to absolve itself of such a vital function where there are serious concerns for the people of Scotland. We really would then lay ourselves open to being called mere puppets.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry, but I do not have a lot of time. The minister will get a chance to speak when he sums up. I am being allowed only four minutes, so I had better keep going.

The Parliament should not allow itself to be treated like a mere consultee, but should insist on joint powers for handling radioactive waste, for example.

I gather that at least 10 consultation, guidance and policy documents on setting up the nuclear decommissioning authority are in various stages of preparation and consultation. How can we agree with any confidence to the proposals relating to the work of the NDA when there is still so much detail to be decided on?

It is worrying that the UK Energy Bill does not give the new NDA any overarching environmental objectives that are based on a clear set of environmental principles. Currently, it seems that the NDA's strategy development is based more on meeting "regulatory requirements", with no clear environmental principles enshrined in the bill. In our country, there could be truck loads of nuclear waste going down the A9 daily from Dounreay to Sellafield without our having any say about that.

I turn to other serious concerns with the UK Energy Bill as it stands. There are concerns about the cost implications of the proposed new British electricity trading and transmission arrangements and how those could have a major impact on the development of renewables of all kinds in the north of Scotland. Unless that matter is resolved satisfactorily, we could well see the first working wave machine heading for the much more responsive economic climate in Portugal. If that was allowed to happen, we really would have to ask serious questions about the Executive's commitment to the fledgling renewables industry. There must be a much more robust investigation into the reality of the differing electricity transmission lines and the costing differentials between distribution and transmission lines.

Those are just a few areas of concern that we and many others have about a very incomplete bill. We cannot possibly sign away our responsibility to the people of Scotland in such a casual and cavalier fashion. I ask members to support the amendment and ensure that the Parliament plays its rightful role in deciding what is best for Scotland in Scotland.

I move amendment S2M-788.1, to leave out "agrees" and insert:

"believes that the Energy Bill as proposed will disadvantage the Scottish renewables industry, endanger the Scottish Executive's targets for renewable energy development, establish a UK Nuclear Decommissioning Agency for the management and handling of radioactive waste with no environmental objectives and maintain the current lack of Executive powers over stored radioactive waste; considers that these issues of concern could be resolved through consultation with Her Majesty's Government to the satisfaction of this Parliament, and therefore until those issues have been resolved does not agree".

The UK Energy Bill will effectively set up a new cross-border public body—the nuclear decommissioning authority—which, as Shiona Baird has said, will not have any statement whatsoever of environmental principles at its inception. What is there instead? There is a clear statement of what is required—duties regarding maintenance of skills, promoting competition and value for money—but the NDA must only have regard to the need to safeguard the environment. Given that the waste material that we are discussing has implications for the environment that will continue for thousands—indeed, for tens of thousands—of years, it is astonishing that concern for the environment is not at the heart of the new authority. The SNP believes that it should be.

The member correctly refers to the NDA having a statutory obligation—indeed, a duty—to have particular regard to the need to safeguard the environment. To fulfil that obligation, will it not have to demonstrate that it has carried out that duty to the satisfaction of the independent regulators?

Why, then, are the environmental principles not enshrined in the bill?

The current UK nuclear regulatory system is in chaos, but the NDA will be required only to meet quite inadequate regulatory requirements. Instead of statutory guidance for SEPA, there will be memorandums of understanding, which will probably not be worth the paper that they are written on, especially when commercial and economic considerations seem to be more important than environmental considerations. Given that statutory guidance for SEPA is long overdue, can we expect the minister to publish draft guidance on radioactive discharges in the near future?

To give a direction in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will have only to consult the Scottish ministers. Many of us here might suspect that, in that context, the so-called consultation with the Scottish ministers will smack more of telling them than of consulting them. Certainly, the ministers should not rule out the possibility of being overruled. Frankly, I do not see anything in the bill that ensures any accountability at all, despite what the minister said in his opening speech.

Nuclear waste storage is currently regulated by Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate, and SEPA gets responsibility only when the waste is to be disposed of. The NII has no duty of public consultation, but SEPA has. Shifting NII responsibilities to SEPA would increase public involvement; therefore, I ask that, instead of agreeing to this Sewel motion, we should seek the transfer of responsibility for the regulation of waste storage from the NII to SEPA, so that SEPA deals with both storage and disposal.

The bill will allow fast-tracking of the transfer of radioactive discharge authorisations, which process has been one of the few opportunities for public consultation on the operation of a nuclear site. Clause 3 of the Energy Bill also allows for the NDA being allocated responsibility for the decommissioning and cleaning up of Ministry of Defence sites, which may end up including the management of nuclear submarine decommissioning. Can the minister point me to anything in the bill that, if that should happen, will prevent the imposition of a nuclear waste storage site in Scotland for nuclear submarine waste?

As for British Energy, this is obviously a massive Government bail-out in the course of which the bill appears to open the door to public funding for future private nuclear operators. That is being discussed even at the European level. What we need is a Scotland-wide debate on the best option for dealing with spent nuclear waste and on the nuclear industry as a whole. Does the minister intend to initiate such a debate any time soon? We need to be vigilant when these issues are being discussed, especially when they are being discussed outwith Scotland and a long way away from any public involvement.

We know that, through the years, a large number of sites for nuclear waste disposal have been identified, the majority of which have been in Scotland. We also know—and any conversation with Nirex will confirm this as fact—that there exists a secret list of 12 sites, of which only two were ever made public: Sellafield and Dounreay. That list has been in existence since 1988 but Nirex is not permitted to publish it. Given that background, it is vital that Scotland should retain as much control and public involvement as it can in this area. Of course, I would argue for total control. Westminster has created a mess, is erecting a smokescreen of consultation documents, has produced and continues to produce nuclear waste that it cannot deal with satisfactorily, and is bailing out British Energy at a cost to the taxpayer. How can that be allowed to continue with only the fig-leaf of consultation for Scotland? The minister should be ashamed of himself. In fact, both ministers should be ashamed of themselves, as I assume that the closing remarks will simply echo the opening remarks.

I listened to what the minister had to say about BETTA, but I am afraid that the concerns in the industry mean that it is not so sanguine. I have great sympathy for the substance of the Green amendment; however, notwithstanding what Shiona Baird said, it unfortunately implicitly accepts a Sewel procedure that we do not accept.

Energy is an area that is largely reserved, but of which specific aspects are devolved. The UK Energy Bill deals with matters that affect the UK but impact on Scotland. We believe that, as we have an effective single energy market throughout the UK, it makes sense for measures to apply equally north and south of the border. We therefore have no difficulty in supporting the principle of the Sewel motion on the bill. For the same reason, we will oppose the Green amendment.

I take issue with what Shiona Baird said about our having no say in what is going to happen. We still send members of Parliament to Westminster to represent Scottish interests. I appreciate that that may be an uncomfortable fact for the Greens and the Scottish nationalists, who wish that situation to come to an end, but it is a fact that we have members of Parliament at Westminster to represent our views, and that will continue to be the case.

Nonetheless, we have some reservations about some of the proposals in the bill, and I will take a moment to draw members' attention to those. The largest fault with the bill is a fault of omission in the serious lack of a clear energy strategy for the future of our country. We know about the Government's target for renewable energy: 40 per cent by 2020. It is interesting that even the former Minister for Energy and Construction, Brian Wilson, is now questioning whether that is achievable. Up and down the land, local communities are faced with the threat of large onshore wind farm developments on their doorsteps, which will potentially radically alter our rural landscape. I am sure that all members have received concerns in their mailbags about those developments.

However, even if the target is met, the real question for the Government is, where will the other 60 per cent come from? Virtually every conventional or nuclear power station in Scotland is expected to have reached the end of its life before 2020. How will we generate the other 60 per cent to keep the lights on and keep us warm? Will it come from fossil fuels? If so, where will new gas-burning stations be built? Will it come from nuclear power? If so, what are the Government's proposals to extend the life of Torness and Hunterston or to replace Chapelcross? We heard from British Nuclear Fuels Ltd at the Enterprise and Culture Committee yesterday that the last nuclear plant in Scotland will close by 2023 at the latest.

Does Mr Fraser accept that the position that Governments have taken on the matter is that the issue of nuclear power cannot be properly and adequately addressed until the issue of nuclear waste has been successfully and adequately resolved, and that the Energy Bill is moving us firmly in that direction?

I hear what the minister is saying, but a serious supply gap needs to be addressed. The evidence that we heard at the committee yesterday was to the effect that decisions need to be made now and that the threat of nuclear waste is much diminished, in comparison with what it was in the past. A gap must be filled and the Government must plan now to fill that gap, otherwise we will not have energy for the future.

Will the member give way?

No. I am sorry, but I am short of time.

The bill talks about creating a nuclear decommissioning authority. Radioactive waste policy is devolved and responsibility for its implementation lies with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, so there is a case for Scottish input into the completion of the legislation. Let us not forget that there are economic opportunities from decommissioning and that we have skills in Scotland that can be used, not least at Dounreay.

We have also heard about BETTA and I welcome what the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning had to say about that matter. However, I say to him that he has some way to go to convince the renewables industry that the situation is as he pointed out. There is still widespread concern out there about the impact of the new arrangements.

In the north of Scotland, the hydro subsidy is to go as a result of changes in European Union rules. I am pleased that, in the bill, the Government recognises the need to share the higher transmission costs in the north of Scotland across the rest of the United Kingdom. We are entering a period when the north will contribute even more than its fair share of generation as the renewables industry develops, so it seems only fair that there is no financial disadvantage to customers there.

The bill raises important issues that affect Scotland, but as energy policy needs to be considered across the whole of the UK—not just in Scotland in isolation—a Sewel motion is the correct way forward. Nevertheless, I hope that the points made in the debate will be taken on board by the DTI and that, in particular, we will see a real commitment to a sensible energy policy to meet our needs in the years to come.

I advise members who wish to speak in the open part of the debate that I will give them only four minutes.

While the Energy Bill is of the greatest importance to Scotland, I personally have two concerns that I believe the Executive must pursue with the DTI. Those, as the minister has indicated, relate specifically to transmission charges. Obviously, I welcome the fact that cost-reflective charging for transmission will now be standard following the recent review of Ofgem's plans. That has removed one potential barrier to the Scottish renewables industry.

One key concern is with the considerable powers that the bill will give to Ofgem. I understand the principle of cost-reflective charging: it encourages electricity generation to occur closer to the market that uses it and therefore reduces transmission losses. However, the way in which Ofgem proposes to apply the principle threatens Scotland's renewable energy industry, which is important to my constituency and to many other remote rural areas.

As members know, the transmission access charges scheme being proposed by Ofgem will result in a charge of about £21 per kilowatt generated in Scotland, while in the south-east of England, where the market is centred, subsidies of about £20 per kilowatt will be available for renewables generation. That clearly threatens to strangle at birth any wave or tidal energy developments where the resource is greatest—off the north and west coasts of Scotland.

The solution that I hope the minister will pursue is to ensure that the UK Government—in this case, as the minister has indicated, the DTI—is given the power through the Energy Bill to cap the charging mechanism put forward by Ofgem.

I respond by pointing out that clause 106 of the Energy Bill, as it currently stands before Westminster, gives the secretary of state powers to modify licence conditions where he feels that it is necessary or expedient to do so. That power allows the DTI to direct Ofgem if necessary on the licence conditions that apply.

I welcome what the minister has said, but we will need to keep an eye on the issue. As I have outlined, the issue is crucial to some of Scotland's remotest areas. Such a provision will simply allow the DTI to step in to solve any problems that might arise in future.

The second point that I want to make concerns the notorious 132kV issue, which is another matter that the Executive must pursue. The key issue concerns the classification of 132kV lines, which are classified as transmission lines in Scotland, whereas in England and Wales—as the minister knows—they are classified as distribution lines. That means that smaller generators that connect into or make use of the 132kV network will face different charging regimes. That could fly in the face of all that we are trying to do.

In my opinion, the current Ofgem proposals to offer a rebate will not be sufficient to offset the discrimination that Scottish generators will suffer. As the minister has outlined, that re-emphasises the importance of ensuring that the UK Government will be able to step in to adjust Ofgem schemes if they disadvantage the renewables sector. I support the solution suggested by the Scottish renewables forum, which has said that any solution must remove discrimination between the way in which generators and consumers are treated in England and Wales and the way in which they are treated in Scotland. I also suggest to the minister that the solution must be what I call time robust, in that it must be able to reflect the changing nature of the Great Britain grid and the increasing levels of renewables generation.

It is appropriate that the Parliament is dealing with the matter through a Sewel motion. The problem with going down the route that has been proposed by my good friends the Greens is that it would, I am afraid, require revisiting the Scotland Act 1998. As Jim Wallace used to say, that would be like pulling the plant out to have a look at the roots again. I commend the Sewel motion to the Parliament.

We move to open debate. I call Christine May, who will speak from a sedentary position.

I am grateful for the permission to speak seated. I did not know that folk would stick knives in my back quite so low down, but let us hope that my back improves.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the motion because the bill contains several measures that are important to Scotland and to the renewable energy industry. I was pleased to have the opportunity to question the minister at last week's meeting of the Enterprise and Culture Committee, at which I received reassurances about the money that Ofgem will pay into the Scottish consolidated fund following the passage of the bill. I particularly welcome that because I hope that the more I mention it, the more chance there will be that some of the money will be spent in my constituency. If the money is used properly, it will be extremely useful for the promotion of renewable energy. I hope that a significant amount of it will be spent on manufacturing infrastructure and training and on the support industries, which I feel are sometimes overlooked.

Another important feature of the bill is its introduction of renewable energy zones, which will allow offshore development of renewable resources. That could include wind, wave and tidal power, all of which will form an important part of the energy mix if we are to meet our targets. The bill will legislate for applications for Scottish parts of the renewable energy zones to be approved by the Scottish Executive. That will enable us to decide which applications are good for Scotland and which are not.

Although a reserved matter, BETTA will have a profound effect on electricity consumers and generators in Scotland. Once again, I am grateful for the minister's response in the committee that that matter will be Ofgem's responsibility. The minister confirmed that when he responded to the Green member, Chris Ballance. The fact that we have an Ofgem office in Glasgow has proved extremely helpful to those of us who have been carrying out research into renewable energy. I hope that that relationship can improve. As Jamie Stone and the minister himself have mentioned, there are issues about distance from the market and so on.

Perhaps things will not work out in quite the way that we envisage, but we will watch and lobby and bend the minister's ear whenever we feel that generators or fuel suppliers have a genuine case. A UK-wide energy market can only be good for Scotland. It will be good both for customers and for generators, which will be able to expand down south.

The terms in which provision is made for the formation of a nuclear decommissioning authority are significant because they give us more say in the way in which Scottish nuclear power stations are decommissioned. That will ensure that we can achieve the safest and most practicable solution for us.

The Green party amendment suggests that the proposals

"endanger the Scottish Executive's targets for renewable energy development"

and that agreeing to the Sewel motion will somehow put the brake on such development. However, the amendment provides no examples in that respect and I fail to see how Green party members can justify that statement from the proposals before us.

The amendment also mentions the lack of environmental measures. I refer members to clause 9(1)(b) of the bill, which, as Allan Wilson has pointed, out clearly talks about

"the need to safeguard the environment".

The targets will have to be achievable and, indeed, met if that duty is to be carried out.

I really do not think that the industry can wait while we revisit and tear up the Scotland Act 1998 so that we secure rights for ministers to deal with waste. After all, members of the UK Parliament are perfectly able to do that on our behalf.

I should first wish Christine May a speedy recovery. I always seem to follow her in these debates, although I must point out that I am in no way responsible for sticking the knife in—as she put it at the beginning of her speech.

I also want to correct a comment that Christine May made at the end of her speech. We do not require a primary amendment to the Scotland Act 1998 to ensure that responsibility not just for the matters covered in the bill but for the whole field of energy is devolved to us; we merely require an order in council to change schedule 5 on reserved powers. The quicker that we secure that order in council to make energy a wholly devolved responsibility, the better. From what Shiona Baird said, I think that the Greens share that view.

I remember the days of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. Both bodies had major advantages for the Scottish consumer, because they were what economists call vertically integrated organisations. In other words, they were responsible for transmitting electricity and distributing the energy that they created. Indeed, both even had retail functions. They represented an A to Z of electricity production, distribution and—if I can use a word that might have been common to Allan Wilson and his predecessors—exchange.

I am concerned about BETTA, which will affect that situation and make us susceptible to changes in regulation that are dictated not by the interests of the Scottish electricity industry or the Scottish economy but by a bunch of bureaucrats in London. I want to concentrate on two of the objectives of the BETTA proposals, the first of which is, according to our briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre, the establishment of

"A common set of trading rules so that electricity can be traded freely across Great Britain".

Why do we need common rules for that to happen? After all, we trade freely in electricity with France. Moreover, we in Scotland send electricity to Northern Ireland without having to observe such trading rules. The idea that it all has to be controlled by a central bureaucracy in London in order to sustain a free market is nonsense. The free market that we are looking for is right across Europe.

Will the member give way?

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to give way.

And you have only one minute left.

I would love to engage the minister—indeed, I am sure that I will at some stage—but the Parliament's silly rules mean that I have only one minute left.

Ooh.

That is not your fault, Presiding Officer. I am sure that you would want me to go on a bit longer.

You are rapidly consuming what is left of your time.

The second objective behind the BETTA proposals is the establishment of

"A common set of rules for access to, and charging for the use of, the transmission network."

As that takes no account of Scotland's interests, it is little surprise to find not only that Scottish Power criticised those daft proposals but that Scottish and Southern Energy criticised them heavily. Further, the Scottish Renewables Forum said that the proposals as they stand will damage the development of renewables rather than encourage it. Therefore, let us not endorse the bill and let us give the thumbs down in particular to BETTA.

It always amazes me what you can do with four minutes, Mr Neil.

I welcome the bill because it will provide a new framework for energy policy. However, a couple of things must be said about areas in which I believe more work can be done.

I thought that what Christine May said about the importance of our environmental principles underpinning the bill was right. It is critical for the regulation of electricity trading arrangements and for the operation of the nuclear decommissioning authority that environmental principles are written into the bill. If we are to get the right decisions for the long term, it is not good enough to have a best-value approach that adds on the environment after how things will be done has been sorted out, when only minor tweaks can be made. Environmental principles must be right up there at the front of the bill.

I read the minister's comments to the Enterprise and Culture Committee—

Will the member give way?

No, I have only four minutes.

I want the minister to state more strongly that he will ensure that if we approve the Sewel motion, he will put environmental principles on the UK ministers' agenda. Emphasising those principles is part of our job of protecting the Scottish environment, but I believe that they are utterly consistent with the UK Government's principles on the environment. The UK Government has done a huge amount of work to change UK policy on energy during the past six or seven years. The environmental principles must be in the system.

When we come to deal with the regulation of nuclear waste, it is critical that the framework that is set up enables SEPA to continue to do its important work, which is based on the principle of protecting the Scottish environment. The bill will set up a framework for that. The key thing is to ensure that the detail of the bill is watched as it goes through committee. It is also important to set a framework for cleaning up our old nuclear facilities and sites and moving to a wide-ranging decommissioning programme. That programme has started at Dounreay under the existing regime.

The discussions that have taken place between two grown-up Governments show the way that we must go in the future. The Sewel motion is part of that negotiated system for the future.

It is vital for our economic and environmental future that the bill gets renewables right. I welcome the Enterprise and Culture Committee's commitment to ensuring that the Scottish Executive is fully aware of the representations from the Scottish renewables industry and the whole issue of how we develop the grid in the future. That is critical for the delivery of our target for Scottish renewables and the UK's global aspirations.

I believe that the Greens' amendment totally misses the target. If they want to be critical, they should know that it is not the bill that is the problem but the nature of the BETTA system that is being developed outwith the bill. Changing the bill or refusing to pass the Sewel motion will not make any difference to that at all. What we need to do is to get stuck in and negotiate to ensure that our Scottish ministers are fighting our corner, as they have been doing. We have already had changes for Ofgem on the issue and we want more of that work to be done.

The cross-party renewable energy group is working on this issue. Jamie Stone's detailed comments on the expansion of the grid and on a fair financial regime that does not discriminate against the vast opportunities that we have in Scotland for renewables were spot on. It is important that Scottish ministers are at the heart of the process and the Sewel motion will let us ensure that. We will need to do other things in the future, such as managing intermittency so that we can deliver on the 40 per cent target by 2020. We must also look at the issue of small-scale and micro-scale renewables, which have not been mentioned during the debate but which are critical. It is vital that we have a regulatory framework that enables us to do that in Scotland, so I add that to the list of issues that I want ministers to take up with their UK colleagues.

It is important that we take the benefits that will come from the bill—the new renewable energy zones and the opportunities for Scottish operators to export to the national grid—but only if we get the framework right through BETTA. That is not in the bill, but the bill enables it. However, the detailed work will come in consultation with Ofgem. Some progress has been made, but much more needs to be made. I ask the minister to address that in his summing-up.

It is interesting that I follow on from Sarah Boyack. I do not see a place in the bill for the environmental principles to which she referred. However, I believe that the issue must be addressed because we have set environmental targets. More important, however, are the Executive's aims for Scotland as a whole—for Scotland as a country with a thriving and dynamic economy. That is an important objective that the Executive has set and it is addressed in glossy booklets such as "The Way Forward: Framework for Economic Development in Scotland" and "A Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Network". The energy industry in Scotland plays a key role in trying to attain the objectives set out in those documents.

Another of the Executive's objectives is the elimination of fuel poverty. Once again, the energy industry plays a crucial part in that. Since privatisation, electricity unit costs have fallen by some 50 per cent. Whatever we do in the energy industry in the future, we must not jeopardise the advantage that individuals and businesses have achieved from that.

I note that at a recent economic and financial affairs council meeting, which was attended by Gordon Brown, there was emphasis on freeing up energy markets, which lies at the heart of the Energy Bill. At the same time, we must all pay tribute to Margaret Thatcher, who led Europe on that aim of achieving freer energy markets.

Will Phil Gallie give way?

I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.

When I look further into the matter and into the point that Sarah Boyack made about environmental issues, I feel that we are being led by the nose—by Europe, to an extent, and by wider agreements. I refer members to a statutory instrument that we are expected to approve at parliamentary level on European greenhouse gas emissions. It suggests that, across the UK, we must reduce our carbon emissions by some 12.5 per cent, while across Europe the average figure is 8 per cent. I cannot understand why that should be the case, given that we started from a very low base in 1990. I believe that that offers a threat to costs for individuals and businesses.

Will Phil Gallie give way?

I do not have time to give way at the moment.

When I consider other aspects of the issue, I feel that I have to challenge the minister directly, as I have done in recent questions, on the targets set for renewables in Scotland. The target to be achieved by 2010 is 18 per cent, and the target to be achieved by 2020 is 40 per cent. I believe that those targets are unsustainable.

I cannot understand why people in this Parliament take such a negative view of the nuclear industry in Scotland. The generation record at Hunterston and Torness is unsurpassed by any. The nuclear industry has been seen to be the safest of all the means of energy generation. I believe that the Energy Bill will represent a lost opportunity if the Government does not grasp the nettle and develop nuclear stations that will last us the next 20 or 30 years, bearing in mind the fact that other stations will be being phased out by that time.

I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the policy-making process that we are discussing today. First, on the issue of the Sewel procedure, I regret that, once again, we have seen a degree of constitutional absolutism coming from the SNP benches in particular. The Sewel procedure is a perfectly valid and appropriate one, which reflects our constitutional settlement. In this area and in others, it is a practical and pragmatic way forward. The fact that certain members continue to be anti-Sewel almost on principle is wearing very thin and becoming very dull to listen to.

However, there are still improvements needed to the process. Today's motion on the Energy Bill is one of two Sewel motions before the Parliament this week, and in each case the Parliament has had limited time to scrutinise the bills effectively. There are real issues there, and I strongly urge the Minister for Parliamentary Business, although she is not with us at the moment, and the Procedures Committee—I know that both are active in the area—to continue to consider how the Parliament can seek to influence more effectively the development of legislation through the Sewel process.

That said, Sewel motions are but one aspect of the interface between Scotland and the United Kingdom—in energy policy and in policies on a range of other issues that involve complex interrelationships between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster. I venture to suggest that one of the biggest tests that we face, as we move further into the second session of this Parliament, will be to get bigger and better and a wee bit more mature in the way in which we manage that interface. We will not have an effective energy policy, nor will we make effective progress on wider economic and environmental objectives, unless we can get better at working co-operatively, within our constitutional settlement, with our UK partners.

Like others, I acknowledge that good progress has been made by ministers on energy policy. I acknowledge, too, Lewis Macdonald's recent answer to me on this issue at the Enterprise and Culture Committee. However, I am not sure that we have gone as far as we might in seeking to influence policy in this area. We will have to do that on a range of issues that lie ahead, some of which have been touched on today.

I urge colleagues to get away from viewing this kind of debate through a constitutional prism. We do that all too often. The Scottish National Party, as ever, is obsessed with talking about achieving more powers for the Parliament. The party always seeks to provoke constitutional turf wars. However, we should be self-critical. On these benches, we sometimes tread on a few too many eggshells and are not as confident as we ought to be in expressing our opinions. There is a distinction between seeking powers and seeking to influence. Legislation may make it clear that powers are reserved in certain areas, but our analysis and thinking have to be broader.

A number of witnesses in the Enterprise and Culture Committee's current inquiry have floated the suggestion of having some form of Scottish energy strategy policy or framework—call it what you will. We should at least be able to debate that idea with an open mind and to think about what is in Scotland's best interests. We have been prepared to develop a distinctive approach on renewables, to set our own targets and to have our own committee inquiry. It should not be too threatening or difficult—or too open to political opportunism from people in other places—for us to have constructive discussions on this issue. There are lessons to be learned from the way in which policies in this bill have been framed. I hope that we learn those lessons and improve the process in future.

I call Richard Lochhead to make a brief contribution.

As you have given me only two minutes, Presiding Officer, I shall follow Susan Deacon's example and depart from the substance of today's debate. I will talk about energy policy in general and the subject of Sewel motions. If Susan looks at a recent issue of Holyrood, she will see that Professor Thomas W Wälde, who is a professor of international economic, energy and natural resources law at the University of Dundee, is calling for the Scottish Parliament to have more responsibility over energy matters. In the article, he says that it is imperative that the Parliament should get more power over offshore resources such as oil and gas. The trend is therefore going against what Susan Deacon is saying. More and more people are arguing for more powers to come to the Parliament.

On issues such as renewable energy and the offshore industry, it is ridiculous that so much power is still reserved to London. Renewable energy is a huge topic in Scotland. We are in the vanguard of the renewables revolution. We should have full responsibilities over all those matters. When it comes to the continental shelf, we should be getting powers not just over offshore wind farms but over the offshore industry in general. Just about every federal state in the developed world devolves responsibility for energy to its constituent parts. This is the only Parliament with primary responsibilities that are similar to the powers of federal Parliaments elsewhere in the world that finds that most energy policy is reserved to the central authority—in our case, Westminster. Only in underdeveloped countries is energy not devolved to federal Parliaments.

We have to address those points. Susan Deacon has to face reality. Energy is a huge issue and we in this country are in the vanguard of energy technology—whether in oil and gas or renewables. That is why the SNP and others in the chamber think that it is important to oppose the use of Sewel motions. We should be taking the decisions here. When people voted for a Scottish Parliament in the referendum of 1997, they expected us to have decision-making powers over the biggest issues that were relevant to their jobs. The oil and gas sector, for instance, has more than 100,000 jobs in Scotland. It has its own crisis at the moment, but Lewis Macdonald, the minister responsible for energy, who is vice-chair of PILOT, never reports back to the chamber on what he is doing to help the oil and gas sector. We get not one squeak from him about what he is up to.

There is no time.

In response to parliamentary questions, all we get back are answers that say that there are on-going discussions between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government. We cannot even scrutinise the Executive on what little power it has over energy policy and perhaps we should address that.

I am sorry; we just do not have enough time for the normal exchanges. We must go to the closing speeches.

The Energy Bill seeks to put into place arrangements for the management of radioactive waste over the following decades. Even though it will affect our children, their children and their grandchildren more than any other piece of legislation that we will debate in this parliamentary session, we are agreeing its proposals without any in-depth scrutiny, any clause-by-clause debate or any chance to lodge amendments. An off-the-cuff remark by Lord Sewel has turned him into a verb in this place—"to Sewel" means to abrogate one's responsibilities, to fail to consider and to avoid discussion; that is what we are doing by agreeing to the bill's provisions through a Sewel motion. One and a quarter hour's discussion is not proper consideration for such a vital piece of legislation.

The minister must accept the Greens' contention that genuine concerns exist, which members of all parties—the Conservatives, the Liberals, the SNP and even the Labour Party—have mentioned. There are concerns that BETTA will disadvantage Scotland. We need a commitment to stronger negotiations and effective consultations.

Does Mr Ballance accept the fundamental point that I made in my opening remarks, which was that renewables generators' concerns relate to the potential conditions in the licences, not to the bill's provisions?

I accept that the concerns about which all the generators have lobbied us relate to the setting up of BETTA. Those concerns have not yet been addressed and we want the minister to give a commitment that he will argue the case for Scotland and its generators successfully.

Christine May mentioned the bill's reference to the word "environment". It is true that the bill says that the NDA shall have regard to

"the need to safeguard the environment",

along with policy,

"the need to protect … health and safety"

and

"the need to preserve nuclear security."

However, that does not amount to the overarching, overriding concern for the environment that we in the Green party are looking for from the bill.

I contend that the bill's concern for the environment is not as strong as the obligation on the NDA to secure the best value for money that is consistent with regulatory requirements. The Executive's partnership agreement states:

"Where decommissioning of nuclear power stations occurs, we will aim to use and develop best practice in decommissioning".

That is not the same thing—the cheapest is not the best.

Sarah Boyack has mentioned that it is vital that the bill gets things right. We agree that that is vital, but in our view the bill does not get things right and we are not getting the chance to examine it clause by clause or to debate it in the proper fashion.

Phil Gallie talked about the need for new nuclear power stations, but I remind him that, when Mrs Thatcher was in power, she promised 20 new nuclear power stations in the succeeding 20 years. Not one of those stations was delivered, because the free market discovered that nuclear power is uneconomic. Nuclear power has failed economically.

The UK Energy Bill is a bad bill, which will disadvantage Scotland and fail to protect our environment. Therefore, I call on anyone who has concern for Scotland and our environment—I am disappointed that the SNP feels that Sewel motions are more important than the environment to Scotland and I am not convinced that the Scottish public would agree—to vote for the amendment in my name.

The UK Energy Bill is undoubtedly important for the future of the Scottish energy industry. That is especially the case for our renewable energy sector, which has much potential. In that regard, I must say that the bill could have done much more for renewable energy. The bill deals with a range of issues, across reserved and devolved areas. It makes sense to deal with those issues in a coherent way. The Sewel mechanism offers benefits. That said, I endorse completely Susan Deacon's remarks.

It is advantageous, for example, that the Scottish Executive can have input to and influence on the early stages of setting up the nuclear decommissioning authority instead of having to set up operating protocols at a later stage with a body that is fully developed. Liberal Democrats would like the environmental duties of the NDA to be enhanced. We do not want to see the NDA being used as a means of diverting public money towards the bailing out of our failing private nuclear liabilities.

I will return to home matters. The Scottish Executive must do all that it can to ensure that BETTA is better. If the detail of the new arrangements is not right, there is a serious danger that there could be a significant disadvantage to Scottish generators, particularly the smaller generators and renewable energy generators. Simply to roll out the new electricity trading arrangements would throw away the opportunity to tailor electricity trading arrangements to be more renewable-friendly.

I hope that the Scottish Executive will exert what influence it can on the proposition that the Crown Estate should be the licensing authority for offshore marine energy installations. The overriding and, indeed, statutory duty of the Crown Estate is to maximise the return from its resource; I do not see that duty as one that will provide the best framework in which to foster a fledgling industry. In addition to the conflict of interest, there is the issue of the Government paying out with one hand and taking in with the other. Liberal Democrat colleagues at Westminster have pursued the issue in both Houses of Parliament and they will continue to do so.

The Executive's partnership agreement includes a commitment to consult on

"current management and rental arrangements for the sea-bed".

I ask the Executive to begin that consultation as rapidly as possible. Marine energy will be a globally competitive marketplace. We must ensure that Scottish firms, which are currently in the vanguard, are not hindered by excessive charges.

We should not forget that we have 72 Scottish MPs who can protect and argue for Scotland's interests at Westminster. We should also not forget the benefits for us as a devolved Parliament when we choose to use the Sewel mechanism. The nuclear decommissioning authority will happen. BETTA is not a devolved matter and it will happen whether or not the Greens' amendment is agreed to. Through the Sewel mechanism, the Scottish Executive can have an input and can exert influence instead of having to accept a purely Westminster-shaped NDA or BETTA. I support the Executive motion.

As Norah Radcliffe suggested, not only do the Greens not have a solution to Scotland's energy needs in the future, but they do not understand the constitution of the United Kingdom. Agreeing to the Sewel motion today will not result in the passing of the bill. The bill has to go through the full procedures of the Houses of Parliament, where it will be scrutinised by representatives including those from Scotland.

I did not agree with a single word that Chris Ballance said in his speech. I agreed with one sentence in Ms Baird's speech, in which she spoke about the bill being incomplete. As my colleague Mr Gallie suggested, no clear commitment is made to the future of the nuclear industry. It is about time that the UK Government came off the fence and made a clear commitment to nuclear energy in the future. Mr Macdonald's suggestion that we should wait until the completion of the waste review is spurious. As the minister knows, the lead time for the commissioning of a new nuclear power station is extremely long. The two exercises could run in parallel.

Will the member give way?

No. I have only a short time.

The net effect of Government policy is that we are losing the opportunity to develop new nuclear power stations such as the Chapelcross power station, which is the largest licensed site in the United Kingdom and which will cease production of electricity in 2005. A new power station on that site remains an aspiration until the Government gets off the fence and makes it absolutely clear that it will support the nuclear industry. It is about time that we stopped pandering to Mr Ballance and his colleagues, who suggest that their views have widespread public support when they do not. There is still great support in this country for the nuclear industry, based on its record of safety and environmentally sound production. We should speak out for it, and not be afraid to do so.

We should not accept that because someone is pro the nuclear industry, they are anti renewables. The metropolitan elite, which Sarah Boyack and others represent, must understand that people in areas such as the south of Scotland do not want to see a sea of wind farms taking up the whole area. The approach of the elite would be quite different if there were proposals to put wind farms on the top of Arthur's Seat. They would rise quickly to their feet to oppose that.

Will the member give way?

I am coming to the last part of my speech.

In the south, we have, at least, been saved by the Ministry of Defence, which came to our rescue and objected to the construction of wind farms within a 50-mile radius of the Eskdalemuir seismological station.

I rebut a point that Chris Ballance made at question time recently, when he said that there had been no consultation on the NDA. I attended a consultation for stakeholders, which was held in Prestwick. It was the second such event, at which even green elements—who promoted the usual nonsense—were represented. Chris Ballance's claim was quite untrue.

It is a pity that we have not had more time, for once in this Parliament, to debate the benefits of the nuclear industry, but I am sure that that subject will be raised by colleagues at Westminster when the bill is properly and accurately scrutinised.

It is clear from the debate that the need for a Scottish energy strategy is missing from the Scottish Executive's response to the bill. Members on the Executive benches have noted—as have others—that we do not have the same energy profile in Scotland that England has and that, in a UK sense, many of the problems that are created—

Will the member give way?

No. I am sorry, but I have got plenty to say. We will hear more in a minute from Allan Wilson, who can rebut what I say.

We have to deal with the different needs of Scotland and England. The reason for our opposing the Sewel motion is that we would like a Scottish energy strategy to be developed by this Parliament—that has not happened so far—and for the Parliament to have full powers to do that.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

My colleague Alex Neil mentioned that at present we have the opportunity to sell to Ireland and to other parts of Europe. The idea that a British energy market is the way to go ahead with the future organisation of electricity is wrong. That is another reason for us to oppose this Sewel motion.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

Offshore renewable energy zones are referred to in the bill. It is interesting that when we debated the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill, we were told that arrangements would be made for safety zones and that that matter would be dealt with in a maritime bill. There are questions about matters such as the safety of ships. Those measures have ended up in the Energy Bill, when we require a maritime bill. The large tome that is the Energy Bill has been added to by having to deal with that issue. This Parliament has already dealt with that issue in detail, but that work has been scrubbed out.

On offshore renewable energy zones, the Scottish Renewables Forum, which is beginning to discuss matters, had better try to ensure that there is not the debacle in setting up renewables energy offshore that there has been in setting up renewables energy onshore. I hope that we can be assured on that point, because we do not want to replicate the mess that has happened onshore.

Will Rob Gibson give way?

No, I will not.

The bill does not offer the Scottish Executive new powers, as Allan Wilson suggested that it did. The Scottish Executive already has powers under which it can deal with nuclear matters. Scottish ministers are already consulted about the operation of HM nuclear installations inspectorate in Scotland and have full control over the workings of SEPA, so there are no new powers in the bill for Scottish ministers or the Scottish Parliament, as Allan Wilson appeared to suggest that there are.

The Scottish National Party wants to have a debate about a Scottish energy strategy, but the bill allows there to be a British strategy that cuts across our needs. In Scotland, we probably already produce 100 per cent more energy than the country requires. It is therefore important that we realise that the need to create a larger renewables sector is the sort of issue that is of far more importance to us and the kind of matter that we should address in an energy bill that suits Scotland's needs.

The bill is not clear enough on the way in which the environment is dealt with. Scotland, as a country in which nuclear waste has been created, should find solutions for that in Scotland, but the bill, once again, attempts to create a British solution that is largely not Scottish.

We suggest that the Sewel motion should be rejected and that the Parliament should create a Scottish energy strategy for Scotland's needs.

I welcome the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Executive. I will try to address the points that members have raised, but if I cannot do so, I will get back to members.

Some members have argued that they need more time to decide on the bill. I recognise that it is always helpful to have more time, but with the greatest respect, I point out—as did the convener of the Enterprise and Culture Committee last week—that the bill has been in the public domain for two months, and it has even occasioned Mr Mundell getting to a local consultation meeting in Prestwick during that period. Beyond that, consultation on underlying issues has been taking place for months and, indeed, years.

Will the minister give way?

If Chris Ballance will let me develop the point, he can come in.

The argument is that the bill somehow or other came out of the blue, and, of course, that is nonsense. As Jamie Stone said, the argument for more time is a smokescreen for more constitutional navel gazing, which is as useful as the Parliament debating how many angels could dance on the end of a needle or addressing J M Barrie's classic philosophical question,

"Do you believe in fairies?" As Peter Pan said:

"If you believe … clap your hands".

Perhaps Mr Morgan is going to clap his hands.

Does the minister not agree that it is not constitutional navel gazing to say that, given that the bill rightly says that the Scottish ministers should be consulted on certain things, it would not be unreasonable for them to ask whether they could also be consulted about fuel management? Although fuel management is a reserved issue, it would be reasonable for the Scottish ministers to be consulted on it, so why has it been specifically excluded?

I will come to Alasdair Morgan's and Roseanna Cunningham's point about the need for a debate. I recognise that fuel processing and reprocessing raise environmental concerns, but we must not forget that, if proposals were made for a processing or reprocessing facility in Scotland, we would still determine policy through our existing responsibilities for environmental regulation and planning. It is not the case that we are, or would be, silent on the aspects of fuel processing or reprocessing that would impact on Scotland.

Roseanna Cunningham said that there was a need for a national debate in Scotland on radioactive waste. I agree, and that is why we have set up the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management at UK level—when I say "we", I mean the UK Government. CORWM is well aware of Scottish concerns on radioactive waste management, and public engagement is the key to that process.

Why not debate that?

I am quite happy for that to be debated here, as well as in the wider context of the UK. In my opinion, however, that would be more constitutional navel gazing on the part of nationalists.

The bill establishes the framework for much of the Executive's ambition to develop our marine renewable resource. The contribution of marine energy is vital if our ambition to achieve the 40 per cent renewable energy target by 2020 is to be realised. There has been much gnashing of teeth about that particular ambition but, without the bill, it cannot be achieved. The bill advances our ability to promote renewable energy of all kinds, by releasing to the Executive those funds that are generated by the auction of green certificates.

Just how will the minister be able to achieve the renewables target while maintaining the cost of units at its current low level and, at the same time, guaranteeing supply over the period that the target covers? [Interruption.]

Before the minister answers, I call the meeting to order. There is a very high volume of conversation around the chamber.

The issue of security of supply is fundamental to the debate—which Roseanna Cunningham and others want—on our future energy needs. That question will drive the direction in which the debate goes.

I have been noting with some interest the Enterprise and Culture Committee's inquiry into renewable energy and the evidence that has been given by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd and others, to which Phil Gallie referred. The committee's deliberations about that will be welcome. Security of supply and the questions that that poses for the development of the UK's energy policy will be critical. The only way in which we can achieve the target and retain security of supply is through BETTA and a single, integrated UK energy market.

The minister mentioned the Enterprise and Culture Committee's renewable energy inquiry. He will recall my point that the prosperity of the north is much linked to the decommissioning of Dounreay. Does he agree that it is vital that the NDA continues that flexible policy, which involves local decision making and which builds on the local skills pool, so that the policy can continue to be a world beater?

I agree with that. I welcome the opportunity to repeat to the Parliament, and to the country at large, the fact that we are global leaders in nuclear technology. We have built up that expertise over many generations and we export it to the rest of the world. A critical proposal for the nuclear decommissioning authority is that it will have a duty to develop and maintain a skills base to undertake decommissioning. We will expect the NDA to take forward the excellent work that has been done in the areas of decommissioning skills and qualifications, which have been evident in Caithness, in Mr Stone's constituency, where the UK Atomic Energy Authority has worked in partnership with local enterprise agencies and learning providers to export that skills base to other parts of the UK and Europe.

The minister has been talking about decommissioning. I hope that he is not losing sight of the prospects for nuclear commissioning in Scotland, too. If we are serious about CO2 emissions and about security of supply, we must have new nuclear facilities.

The serious issue of the source of supply for future energy generation goes to the heart of the matter of the security of the supply system, which I mentioned previously. As Christine May said, a UK energy market is not only good for Scotland; it is indispensable. Those who support the Executive's renewable energy targets—or who, like the Greens, seek to exceed them—must, if we are to deliver those targets and sell and export that renewable energy capacity, be able to answer the question, "Where do we have to sell it?" That is not a rhetorical question—we have to sell it to the rest of the UK.

I said that it was not a rhetorical question. [Laughter.]

Nevertheless—

Order. The minister is his last minute.

If it is not a rhetorical question, the minister should let Chris Ballance answer it.

No.

I am sorry—I cannot give way. Obviously, I meant to say that it was a rhetorical question.

Why should England and Wales, or the rest of the UK, which is our biggest market, buy from Scotland, with all the disadvantages of transmission loss that would ensue? There will be hydro benefit and massive advantages to Scotland in spreading the investment in increasing grid capacity throughout the UK. That is essential if we are going to sell renewable capacity beyond our shores. Separation of Scotland from its biggest market for renewable generation, as suggested by both the nats and the Greens, would, as Susan Deacon said, be catastrophic for the renewables sector and would kill stone dead the growth of renewables-related economic and employment development.