Longannet Power Station
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking regarding the future of Longannet power station. (S4T-00804)
The Scottish Government has regular dialogue with Scottish Power, the United Kingdom Government and National Grid about Longannet power station and its contribution to our energy security.
Last week, Scottish Power announced that it has not put Longannet forward for the UK Government’s capacity market auction, which is one of the potential mechanisms for supporting the plant’s continued operation. I have written to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Davey MP, seeking urgent talks on the future of Longannet and the wider implications for energy security. I have also spoken to Neil Clitheroe, Scottish Power’s chief executive officer for retail and generation, who stands ready to join the talks. Given the capacity margin warnings for the coming year from the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets and the vital role that Longannet plays, and given that the 260 people who are directly employed at the plant will be looking for certainty, I urge Ed Davey to come to the table as soon as he can.
Does the minister share my view that the UK Government’s unfair transmission charging regime is putting the 260 jobs at Longannet, as well as local supply contracts, at risk? Will he do everything in his power to ensure that the UK Government works with the Scottish Government to safeguard the future of Longannet and all those vital jobs?
I think that members of all parties are concerned about the future of the workforce throughout Scotland, and Longannet is of particular concern, because of the difficulties that Scottish Power has identified.
Annabelle Ewing is correct in that at Longannet a Scottish generator, Scottish Power, pays a disproportionate penalty in transmission charges, which amount to an additional £41 million every year, whereas I understand that, if it were generating electricity in, for example, London, it would actually be paid £4 million to contribute to the grid. That discrimination affects generators in Scotland and is a serious, albeit not new, problem, on which I have advised the Parliament on several occasions.
Further to his reply, will the minister spell out the consequences of failure on the part of the UK Government to review policy on base-load capacity and to reform the discriminatory transmission charging regime, which has been in place for far too long?
I am concerned to guarantee success, so I am concerned to work with the UK Government in a constructive fashion, in so far as we can do so. I hope that our shared analysis is that the continued operation of Longannet is essential to the maintenance of security of supply in Scotland. Longannet provides voltage stability. In the event of a total loss of power, Cruachan would start up first, then Longannet. Longannet plays a pivotal role in the security of the grid; I—as a non-engineer—understand that National Grid recognises that.
I am concerned that we get a solution. Of course, energy is, in essence, a reserved matter, so the ultimate responsibility for finding that solution rests squarely with the UK Government. However, I want to work constructively with the UK Government to identify and deliver the solution sooner rather than later.
I was pleased to hear the minister say that he will work constructively with the UK Government.
In recent years, Scottish Power has invested more than £200 million in Longannet, which has sustained hundreds of jobs in Kincardine and thousands of additional contractor jobs in my constituency and beyond. In his discussions with the UK Government, will the minister commit not only to stressing Longannet’s strategic importance but to recognising the skills and commitment of my constituents, who were responsible for keeping the lights on in more than 2 million homes last year?
Cara Hilton made fair points, which I will certainly stress to Ed Davey as soon as we can meet to discuss the matter. The jobs are extremely important, and the challenges that Longannet faces are substantial, as I found during a lengthy meeting at Longannet some time ago, when I learned about the substantial investment of £200 million to render the plant compatible with European Union requirements in relation to emissions reduction. Credit should be given to Scottish Power for its massive investment to reduce emissions of SOx and NOx—that is, sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides—and other chemicals. However, the fundamental problem that Mr Clitheroe identified in his press release last week is that Scottish generators account for 12 per cent of the generation capacity that is connected to Britain’s high-voltage electricity network but pay around 35 per cent of the charges. That makes it extremely difficult for them to offer guarantees about the future, and that is the problem that I wish to help to solve over the coming weeks.
In addition to the transmission charging regime, which the minister mentioned, two other fundamental issues affect Longannet’s future viability. One is the European Union emissions regulations, to which he referred, and the other is carbon pricing proposals. What are his views on those two other issues?
Mr Fraser is correct that those issues are serious ones. I discussed them in detail with Scottish Power when I visited Longannet, and they make Longannet’s continued operation more challenging. However, I believe that there are options to find a solution.
I understand that National Grid spends in the region of £1 billion a year—I am awaiting confirmation of that in writing—to maintain grid stability. It is not for me to say what precise amount would be required to bring about a solution and longer-term certainty to 2020 at least for Longannet, but it would be a very small proportion of that budget. The opportunity to derive a solution by means of a bespoke contract has therefore existed for a considerable time. It is sad to reflect that it is only after Scottish Power puts these matters in the public domain that progress is made and that it is necessary to go to the press to galvanise those who are involved in coming up with solutions to do that.
I understand that Scottish Power will meet National Grid next Wednesday. I will meet Scottish Power directly after that, and I will most certainly meet National Grid. I have already made it absolutely clear over a long period of time in the chamber, in committee and with National Grid that it must find a solution. It should have found that by now, but it will have to find that in the coming weeks or there will be a more serious debate in the chamber about how Scotland’s generators are treated in the United Kingdom.
Nuclear Power Stations (Safety)
To ask the Scottish Government what role it has in ensuring the safety of nuclear power stations. (S4T-00805)
Powers over nuclear safety are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. The Office for Nuclear Regulation has specific responsibility for regulating safety and security at the nuclear-licensed sites in Scotland, but the Scottish Government is responsible for consequence management and engages closely with the UK Government and the ONR to ensure that robust resilience plans are in place.
We should not be alarmist about the Hunterston cracks, but they make the overwhelming case for a full environmental impact assessment and public scrutiny of any decision to extend the lifetime of these plants. In July, the minister and I corresponded about the Espoo convention and the Aarhus convention, both of which make it clear that, even if no new works are required, the public should be involved in decisions. Will the Government support a full environmental impact assessment of any lifetime extension for nuclear power stations in Scotland?
First, let me confirm that the Office for Nuclear Regulation, to which I spoke this morning, has confirmed what it has made absolutely clear. As the regulator, it has provided an assurance that there are no immediate safety implications for Hunterston B and that it is safe to continue to generate electricity. The safety issue has therefore been dealt with by the regulator.
Ms Johnstone referred to whether there should be a wider environmental impact process. I assure her that the environmental case was considered when Hunterston B’s life was extended to 2023. That extension was made two years ago, and it has already been fully discussed and reported in the Parliament.
In addition to that and the life extension case, it is my understanding of the process from my discussions with the ONR this morning and previously that there is a periodic safety assessment. The next periodic safety assessment is due to be carried out in 2016 or thereby.
I assure Ms Johnstone that the defect that has been found was not unexpected. On the contrary, it was to be expected and was known about by both EDF, the operator, and the ONR. I am sure that no one in the chamber would wish to be unduly alarmist about highly technical matters on which the regulator has been closely involved in working with the company. Indeed, I also spoke to a representative of the company on the matter this morning.
EDF estimates that the graphite bricks have lost almost 13 per cent of their weight. The current safety limit is 15 per cent, but EDF appears to be able to ask the ONR for that limit to be raised—it has done exactly that in Kent. What role does the Scottish Government have in such decisions to lower safety thresholds whenever a nuclear power station appears to risk being in breach or whenever the lifetime is extended?
We take such matters extremely seriously. It is not simply a matter of what powers we have; all of us are concerned to ensure that all aspects of safety are properly maintained across the electricity generation world. We have received an assurance from the ONR that that is the case. I was determined to obtain confirmation of that assurance, which is why I spoke to a senior representative of the ONR this morning.
I suggested that—with your permission, Presiding Officer—both EDF and the ONR should hold a briefing for MSPs after the October recess, and they have agreed to do that. Scottish Government officials will be involved with that and at that briefing EDF and the ONR will answer transparently all the questions that Ms Johnstone and all other members have. I hope to attend that briefing, which will be held when the Parliament is sitting but not during a plenary meeting. With your permission, Presiding Officer, all members will be able to ask questions directly of both the company and the regulator. The willingness of the company and the regulator to accede to my suggestion this morning demonstrates their good faith and I look forward to taking part in that session when it takes place, which I suspect and hope will be in November.
I thank the minister for the advance notice of the intention to have such a session.
I thank the minister for confirming that Hunterston will continue to be closely monitored to ensure that it remains operationally safe for the duration of its working life, which is expected to end in 2023. However, will he confirm that, if there is any possible threat to public safety, remedial action will be taken immediately and that if, in the interests of safety, Hunterston B has to close sooner than 2023, hundreds of people will continue to be employed at Hunterston through the commencement of a decommissioning process that will last for several decades at least?
As the local member, Mr Gibson has been assiduous in representing the interests of his constituents who work at Hunterston, not least when we both attended the event at which the education centre was opened and went on a tour of the plant. The plant is accessible to all members.
Mr Gibson asked a series of questions about what may happen to Hunterston in the future. The life extension to 2023 was granted fairly recently and a very rigorous process is in application. I am satisfied with that. The Scottish Government is regularly in contact with the company, and the company is happy to take an open and transparent approach. Therefore, I am hopeful that, although difficulties may arise, they will be dealt with in a businesslike and efficient way; that none of the eventualities that the member raises will occur; and that the station will continue to operate effectively and safely throughout the remainder of its life.
The First Minister recently wrote to EDF, the operator of Hunterston, admitting that we need our nuclear fleet well into the next decade, as the two stations generate just under half of our electricity. It is therefore very welcome to have heard the public reassurance that the minister has given on the safety of Hunterston and its capacity to continue to generate electricity. However, would it not have been better if the Scottish Government had issued that reassurance yesterday, rather than have the Deputy First Minister call the issue “hugely concerning”, which simply contributed to the alarm that the minister said that we need to avoid. Is it not the problem that, as always, the Scottish Government is trying to face both ways at the same time when it comes to nuclear power?
I will stick with the facts, which are that, ever since I was appointed as energy minister, I have made it clear that nuclear generation by the existing power stations in Scotland will have a continuing role. That was made clear almost from the outset of my tenure in 2011. It comes as news to people who do not follow the Official Report, which is usually the case with MPs and less frequently with MSPs. We expect Hunterston and, of course, Torness—which is in Mr Gray’s constituency and which I have also visited—to continue to generate until 2023. Provided that they can do so efficiently and safely, we support that. Those powers stations are an important part of the grid.
However, there is a real challenge. The problem is that the nature of the transmission charging regime is such that the charges in Scotland make up 35 per cent of the total, when it has only 12 per cent of the generating capacity. Were we to seek to replace thermal generation, for example, why then would any company that was to invest hundreds of millions of pounds choose to invest in a place where it would have to pay an extra £40 million a year? No one from the UK parties has answered that question and, until and unless they do, they will not get anywhere with their political arguments. Those are the commercial realities, which have not been addressed by the UK Government over the past decade.
Human Rights Act 1998 (Proposed Repeal)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the Conservative Party’s plans to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998. (S4T-00803)
The Scottish Government is strongly opposed to any attempt by a future United Kingdom Government to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, or to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. The Human Rights Act exists to protect the interests of everyone in society. Safeguards in the act have been actively used to protect the everyday rights of ordinary people in Scotland, including by helping some of the most vulnerable people in society to challenge iniquitous policies such as the bedroom tax. The Scottish Government’s position is that implementation of the Conservative Party’s proposals would require legislative consent, and that this Parliament should make it clear that such consent will not be given.
Does the minister share the concerns that were expressed by the chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Professor Alan Miller, who said that the Conservative Party’s plan is
“irresponsible, undermines the rule of law, sets a dangerous precedent to other states and risks taking us backwards when it comes to protecting people’s rights in everyday life”?
Professor Miller was absolutely correct to issue that warning. Over the past week, some highly irresponsible proposals and statements have been made by people who hold high political office and who should know better, frankly. Attacks on human rights must never be used as a cheap political manoeuvre by any party. David Cameron and Chris Grayling are running scared of the UK Independence Party and are pandering to the Europhobic extremists in their own party, and appear not to care about the damage that they are doing. The proposals are dangerous and they threaten rights that all of us enjoy. If they were ever implemented, they would inflict immense damage on the UK’s international reputation, and on international efforts to protect and secure human rights around the world. We could hardly lecture other people if we were not prepared to abide by those international rules.
Scotland deserves better, the rest of the UK deserves better and the international community deserves better, and the influence that Scotland and the UK have in the wider world mean that we in this Parliament have a responsibility to show leadership on the issue and to make it clear that what Chris Grayling is proposing is simply unacceptable. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of members of this Parliament agree on that.
The minister alluded to the fact that last year a woman with multiple sclerosis was, on human rights grounds, successful in challenging Glasgow City Council’s decision to apply the bedroom tax against her. Does the minister share my concern that such recourse could be stripped away if the Human Rights Act 1998 were to be scrapped? Is not that case a perfect example of why the act matters to us all?
That is, of course, a precise example of a danger of the changes that seem to be being proposed. Chris Grayling said in a document on Friday that what he wants to do is
“Limit the use of human rights laws to the most serious cases.”
Of course, we do not have a list of what those “most serious cases” might be or of what might, in his mind, be trivial cases. The paper goes on to say that use of the proposed new British bill of rights
“will be limited to cases that involve criminal law and the liberty of an individual, the right to property and similar serious matters. There will be a threshold below which Convention rights will not be engaged, ensuring UK courts strike out trivial cases.”
Of course, what might be trivial to Chris Grayling might be a matter of near life and death to an ordinary human being in our society.
The proposal sounds very much like an excuse for depriving the most vulnerable people in society of hard and enforceable rights. It sounds like a mechanism for removing the right to challenge unfair and unjust policies, and it sounds like a plan to silence dissent and to prevent inconvenient court rulings that demonstrate just how ill-conceived and damaging policies like the bedroom tax are. That is not just my view or the view of the Scottish Government; it also happens to be the view of some very big names within the Tory party itself. For example, Ken Clarke has voiced precisely the same concern. The Scottish Parliament cannot allow what is proposed to happen; it involves a principle that should unite us all.
Does the minister consider that there is an opportunity here to sort out some of the not inconsiderable problems that have arisen from our incorporation of ECHR into the Scotland Act 1988 without fully appreciating the unintended consequences?
I note that Margaret Mitchell has not bothered to give us any specific examples of what those problems might be. I believe that Governments can occasionally be made uncomfortable by decisions that are made elsewhere in terms of human rights. However, in a sense, that is as it should be.
I recall in the early years of this Parliament a then justice minister being warned frequently and vociferously that slopping out in our prisons would simply not stand in terms of human rights, but he nevertheless chose to take the budget for fixing it away and then—lo and behold—it ultimately went to court, and of course it did not stand.
It is not as if we often do not understand in advance when things are going to be a problem, so we should be able to look forward in order to try to fix them. Sometimes, Government will be discomfited by results, but if a human rights act did not occasionally discomfit Government, what on earth would be the point of having it in the first place?
Previous
Business Motions