Nuclear Power Stations
The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2883, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on nuclear power stations, and two amendments to that motion. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
Let me make it clear at the outset of the debate that the motion in my name was drawn up in the hope that it would attract support from across the political spectrum in the Parliament. There has been much comment of late from various political personalities on whether the final decision on the construction of new nuclear power stations in Scotland lies with the Scottish Executive or with the UK Government. The purpose of the SNP motion is to provide the Parliament with the opportunity to state unequivocally that it believes that the final decision on the construction—or otherwise—of new power stations in Scotland lies with the Scottish Executive, which is accountable to the Scottish Parliament. I sincerely hope that we will be unanimous in that view at decision time.
Until recently, there seemed to exist an accepted consensus that the final decision lay with the Executive. That was certainly the view of the former First Minister when, in a letter to John Swinney of 23 August 2001, he said:
"The fact is that, under executively devolved powers, any application for a new power station in Scotland, whether nuclear or not, must be made to Scottish ministers; they have the power to call a public inquiry into the application if that is appropriate, and they have the power to grant consent or otherwise."
Lewis Macdonald recently confirmed that view to me in an answer to a written parliamentary question on 7 March 2002, in which he said:
"powers conferred by section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 have been executively devolved to Scottish ministers. Any application to build an electricity generating station in Scotland therefore requires the consent of the Scottish ministers".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 7 March 2002; p 27.]
In the spirit of co-operation for which the member calls, I take it that he will accept the Executive amendment to his motion, which leaves out consent for all non-nuclear power stations.
I recognise the development of the Executive's position in amendment S1M-2883.2, which is a technical amendment. I will make my mind up after I have listened with interest to the minister's speech.
The position that is outlined in the SNP motion reflects the views of both the former First Minister and the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning—everything seems to be clear from the Executive's perspective. Therefore, there must have been real regret over the intervention of the Scotland Office Minister of State, George Foulkes, when, during an interview with the BBC on 26 February, he said:
"it wouldn't be for a legislature which has powers devolved from Westminster to then thwart the policy of a UK Government".
On which Government would make the final decision on the construction of new power stations, he said that the decision might ultimately lie with Westminster. The cat was out of the bag.
There are two schools of thought on George Foulkes's intervention: either he committed a careless blunder in the interview or, as he conceded during a debate on the issue in Westminster last week, it was all part of a "cunning plan".
Is the Minister of State at the Scotland Office not incompetent and arrogant? Has he not failed to understand what he voted for when he supported the spirit of devolution?
That may be Phil Gallie's view, but I find it difficult to put the concepts of cunning and George Foulkes together.
George Foulkes's comment certainly elicited a swift response from his mate Brian Wilson—I am not sure whether Brian Wilson is his best mate—in a BBC interview the next morning. What is it about the Executive and the BBC? Brian Wilson said:
"The position is unambiguous. If anyone wants to build a power station of any kind in Scotland, it will be a matter for the Scottish Executive to determine. End of story."
Unfortunately, that was not the end of the story. The confusion at the heart of the UK Labour Government was there for all to see—people have been fighting like ferrets in a sack and introducing a great deal of mud into previously pretty clear waters.
Last week, the SNP attempted to clear up that confusion during the debate at Westminster. However, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in her usual crabbit style, made the waters even muddier. She refused eight times to answer the question, "Who will ultimately have the final decision on the construction of power stations in Scotland?"
The Liberal spokesperson, John Thurso, who supported last week's SNP motion at Westminster, said that Helen Liddell's contribution
"amounts to the longest ‘don't know' in history."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 5 March 2002; Vol 381, c 241.]
There should be no impediment to Liberal support for the SNP motion today, given that the party voted with the SNP at Westminster last week.
The Tories abstained during last week's vote. Jacqui Lait said:
"the Scottish Executive would have the authority under the current planning structure to make a decision on a nuclear power station entirely on planning grounds."
The crabbit one responded immediately:
"There is a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of what the hon. Lady is saying."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 5 March 2002; Vol 381, c 234.]
As clear as mud or what?
Today, the job of the Parliament is to send a loud and clear message to those in the UK Labour Government who want to bend their own rules. The final decision rests with Scottish ministers, who are accountable to the Scottish Parliament. If we choose to say no to nuclear power by using the powers that are available to us, that should be the end of the matter. I invite anyone who disagrees with me to rise from their seat now and tell me that the final decision should be taken elsewhere.
The motion is about the powers of the Parliament, but we all know that the underlying argument is about whether new nuclear power stations should be built in Scotland. It is well known that the SNP has a long history of opposition to and active campaigning against nuclear power—to be fair, so do the Liberals. The Labour party went into the 1997 general election with a policy position that was similar to that of the SNP and the Liberals. However, the most recent Labour manifesto made no mention of nuclear power. Perhaps the 1997 policy is still accepted by the majority of MSPs, but who knows what Labour's policy is now? Perhaps the minister will tell us what Labour's policy is, but I somehow doubt that.
I have no doubt that the Tories will tell us about the virtues of nuclear power. The news for them is that, if the Romans had invented nuclear power, we would still be living with the deadly radioactive consequences.
I want to achieve something else today. I want to bury the lie that Scotland is somehow nuclear dependent. It is true that nuclear power makes up 50 per cent of Scotland's market share of about 5,000 megawatts. That is only a small part of the picture because, at 2,500 megawatts capacity, nuclear power accounts for only 26 per cent of our overall generating capacity of 9,600 megawatts. Even without nuclear power, we could continue our existing level of exports with room to spare.
Scotland's future is inextricably linked with the massive potential for green, renewable power, mainly in the forms of wind, wave and tidal power. A recent report that was produced for the Executive described how Scotland could produce 75 per cent of the UK's electricity needs from renewable sources. The report said that, if we were to use every possible source of power, we could have a capacity of about 75,000 megawatts. Even if we took up only a tenth of that capacity, the opportunities would be massive. Ross Finnie said of that report:
"The scale of this potential is illustrated by one stunning statistic: there is enough potential energy from onshore wind power alone to meet Scotland's peak winter demand for electricity twice over."
I recognise the potential of wind power in the Western Isles. Can the member advise me of the costs involved in moving that power from the Western Isles to, say, the midlands of England?
Brian Wilson recently gave a figure for the Celtic grid of about £400 million. However, that is a minimal sum in comparison with the amount of money that the Tories and the Labour party have put into subsidising nuclear power. That is the real problem that faces renewables in Scotland.
Scotland's future must lie in the massive potential of renewable energy, not in nuclear power, which discriminates against Scots customers. Because of the nuclear energy agreement, whereby Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric must buy all the output from Torness and Hunterston C, Scots have to pay way over the odds for their electricity. That is the result of privatisation, which is the fault of the Conservative party.
The Parliament has no real say on energy policy. Therefore, there is no cohesion or even a realistic hope of a strategic energy policy that is designed to best suit Scotland's specific needs. As everyone knows, the only way to ensure that is through independence. It is inevitable that we will not arrive at a common view on who should have control over energy policy.
Bruce Crawford will put the lights out.
The lights have been out in your head for a long time, sunshine.
I do not think that that is an appropriate way to refer to the minister. The member is in his last minute, so I will not allow another intervention.
I hope that a majority in the Parliament accept that there should be no new power stations in Scotland. I hope that we can agree that, as the motion states, the final decision about consent for nuclear power stations, now and in the future, must remain with the Scottish ministers who are accountable to the Scottish Parliament. Bluntly, it is time for Liddell and Foulkes to get bloody noses.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that consent for nuclear and other electricity power stations over 50 megawatts, under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, is a responsibility devolved to Scottish Executive Ministers and believes that the final decision over consent for nuclear power stations, now and in the future, must remain with Scottish Executive Ministers accountable to the Parliament.
I will take the opportunity to pay tribute to Professor Bert Whittington, who died tragically in a road accident this week. Bert Whittington was a distinguished scholar at the University of Edinburgh. Over the years he contributed greatly to the Scottish Executive's work on energy and the environment by making available to us his considerable knowledge of both subjects. He will be greatly missed by everybody who knew and worked with him.
On Bruce Crawford's motion, the position is, in most respects, a simple one. Brian Wilson, the Minister of State for Industry, Energy and the Environment at the Department of Trade and Industry made that clear, as Bruce Crawford knows. Consents for new power stations in Scotland are not an issue. Consent powers are devolved to the Executive. Scottish ministers are responsible for decisions on applications in Scotland to build new power stations of any kind, provided that the power stations in question would have a capacity that is greater than 50 megawatts or, in the case of hydro-electric power stations, a capacity that is greater than one megawatt. That is the case and it will remain the case—full stop.
Although I accept that, at face value, giving consent is within the powers of the Scotland Act 1998, that act also allows Westminster to overrule, even on devolved matters. Will the minister give a guarantee that no such override will be exercised by Westminster ministers?
Let us be absolutely clear about the position. In a moment, I will turn to Bruce Crawford's request for clarification on the purpose of our amendment. I have stated clearly that it remains the position that devolution applies in such cases. Before the position on that could be altered, approval from both Parliaments would be required. That remains the case for matters that are reserved or—as in the present case—matters that are devolved under an order in council. I will say more about that in a moment.
I will complete my clarification on the position on power station consents. Power stations that do not reach the level of capacity that I outlined are subject to determination under our land use planning system. Land use planning powers are a devolved matter. As a former planning minister, I have every confidence that our planning system is adequate to cope with the responsibility for taking those decisions. There is no reason to anticipate any change on that.
As Mike Rumbles pointed out, the motion would have the effect of committing us to accepting that only consents for nuclear power stations—as distinct from consents for other power stations, such as wind farms, wave power stations or coal-fired power stations—should be in the hands of the Scottish ministers. We do not accept that view. We take the clear view that all power station consents that are devolved under the existing provisions should remain devolved. We have lodged an amendment to clarify that position and to make clear our view that all those consents should remain in the hands of Scottish ministers. I do not expect Bruce Crawford to disagree with that. In the amendment, we also make clear that the basis for devolution of power on this matter is an order in council, which we refer to specifically. That helps to remove doubt about, and to clarify the nature of, devolution in relation to power station consents.
I will set the discussion on consents for electricity power stations in the context of our wider energy policy. As Bruce Crawford mentioned, we stand at a critical point in the development of our energy industries. The Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 2002 will soon implement a new mechanism that will give Scotland's renewables their greatest fillip ever.
Our policy is to look to the future. We welcome the recommendations of the energy review—in particular, the priority that it gives to renewables and energy efficiency. We will also address some of the wider, related issues that face the people of Scotland. We have already proposed the stretching of targets on fuel poverty and practical steps to implement that.
I take the minister back to his remarks in response to the point that was made by Alex Neil. If I understood the minister correctly, he said that for the powers of the Scottish Parliament to be overridden by a decision at Westminster, the Scottish Executive and the Westminster Government would have to give consent. Under what circumstances would that happen and what stance would the Executive take in any such discussions?
We do not anticipate such circumstances. I regard that as a hypothetical question, just as I regarded Alex Neil's question as such. In my view, there is no prospect of Westminster seeking to reclaim competence from the Scottish Parliament without our agreement. Any order to that effect would have to be placed in draft form before the Scottish Parliament as well as the Westminster Parliament. The position on our competence is very clear.
The point that George Foulkes was keen to make—and on which he was absolutely correct—is that legislative competence on power station consents remains at Westminster. As part of the Scotland Act 1998 and the devolution settlement, Westminster has chosen to devolve to Scottish ministers the executive power to grant consents under the Electricity Act 1989. That position is correct and it is not likely to change.
Will the minister give way?
I am conscious that I am in my last minute, but with the Presiding Officer's indulgence—
I will allow the intervention.
If Westminster sought such agreement, would the Executive say yes or no?
Bruce Crawford is trying to create an imaginary constitutional conflict about an event that has not occurred. I will not encourage him to go down that line any further. There is no such question on the table.
With our renewables obligation, we are looking towards the development of many other sources of electrical power. We are continuing to invest in that. Rather than dancing on the head of a pin and discussing obscure constitutional issues that are unlikely to arise, it is far more useful and important for the Parliament to give its attention to how we develop our energy policy in the future.
The opening of the Vestas Wind Systems factory in Campbeltown is a significant symbol of the opportunities in renewable energy that lie ahead for Scotland. We must recognise that our mix of energy sources will carry us forward. Bruce Crawford described nuclear energy's 50 per cent contribution to our overall output as a small part of the picture. If 50 per cent is a small part of the picture, I wonder what a large part might be.
However, this is not the appropriate time to discuss the broad principles of nuclear energy policy. It is clear that we will consider developments in that area only once we are satisfied that an acceptable solution for nuclear waste has been found. At that stage, we will examine our long-term options. Whatever we do, the decision will be taken in the Scottish Parliament. The market will no doubt bring forward proposals for new power stations that use various forms of generation. It will be for the Parliament and for Scottish ministers to decide on such proposals.
I move amendment S1M-2833.2, to leave out from "and believes" to "nuclear" and insert:
"under the Transfer of Functions Order 1999 (SI 1999/1750), and believes that the final decision over consent under the Electricity Act 1989 for such".
The Conservative party welcomes the fact that the SNP has lodged today's motion for debate. Although we do not agree with the motion, it is helpful in that it seeks to clarify an anomalous position. Indeed, the position is no clearer after the debate thus far. In speaking to the Executive amendment, the minister asserted that the position is clear under the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc) Order 1999. If the matter was that simple, why was that argument not cited in the House of Commons debate by Helen Liddell, the Secretary of State for Scotland?
She was badly briefed.
Perhaps.
As things stand, it is clear that the power that is given under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to decide on planning consents for nuclear and other electricity power stations rests with the Scottish Executive. That is what the minister has said. It is also clear that control of energy policy is a reserved matter, which rests with Her Majesty's Government in London. The position needs to be clarified. After the debate in the House of Commons, the position was far from clear. Today's debate follows on logically from that debate in Westminster.
To demonstrate my point, let me outline a scenario. I know that this is an unlikely possibility but if, after the next election, the SNP were to form a Government in Scotland—which God forbid—the SNP would bring with it a strongly anti-nuclear policy. If Her Majesty's Government embarked on a programme of building new nuclear power stations in the UK—which seems likely—and decided that one or two new nuclear power stations should be built in Scotland, the situation would arise in which an SNP Government in Scotland could refuse to implement UK energy policy by refusing planning permission for such projects. Indeed, Alex Salmond and Bruce Crawford are apparently on record as saying that they would support a campaign of civil disobedience on that. A constitutional crisis could occur and could even be provoked by the SNP in such a scenario.
If Westminster said yes to nuclear power and this Parliament said no, would John Scott participate in a peaceful civil disobedience campaign?
I would not. If Bruce Crawford would, that is up to him.
Our view is that such a scenario might need to be resolved in court and that our devolved Parliament would ultimately be required to implement UK energy policy, as defined by Westminster. Members may not agree with that, but that is the position as we see it. I find myself surprised to be in agreement with George Foulkes, who said that the Scottish Executive must implement Westminster energy policy. However, Brian Wilson has stated:
"The position is unambiguous. If anyone wants to build a power station of any kind in Scotland, it will be a matter for the Scottish Executive to determine. End of story."
That is simply not the end of the story. As it appears that the Scottish Executive has no power to decide on UK energy policy but has power to grant or withhold planning consent, the question must be resolved as soon as possible, so that we avoid a constitutional crisis.
Can John Scott quote for us which planning acts back up his case? Individual planning applications are decided on their merits. There is nothing in statute that bears out what he has alleged.
I understand that UK energy policy is superior to the position of this Parliament.
It is unreasonable for Governments to expect energy providers to resolve constitutional problems in advance of, or during, the planning process. At the very least, such constitutional problems are a deterrent to any company that might want to make planning proposals for the building of a new nuclear power station in Scotland. Indeed, that may be the SNP's intention in flagging up the issue. The SNP's tactic will discourage such investment, but the losers will be Scotland's nuclear work force of almost 4,000.
Will the member take an intervention?
No thanks, because I think that I am well into my last minute.
You are over your last minute.
Our view is that Scotland must continue to create electricity for its own consumption and for export. We need to take sensible decisions as soon as possible.
If we are to achieve a balanced and sustainable energy policy, we must first acknowledge the existence of global warming and our obligations under Kyoto. In seeking balanced energy provision, we must also acknowledge that we must use all the sources of energy that are available to us. We must be realistic. In four years' time, we will need to start importing gas. Unless we want to be dependent on imported gas for up to 70 per cent of our energy needs by 2025, we need to nurture other market-driven, secure, low-cost energy providers. No one disputes that renewables have a great future and I would seek to encourage their development in every way possible. Coal and gas have an important role to play.
Our view is that nuclear energy must also be part of that mix, so that we can deliver a balanced and sustainable energy policy. To achieve that balanced mix, which would support employment throughout Scotland, decisions must be taken now because the planning and building times for nuclear power stations are so long. The planning procedures need to be reviewed to allow more consultation, but they must also be speeded up. The whole planning process needs to be addressed urgently, but that is a matter for another day. Today, we seek clarification from the Executive of an ambiguous situation. For that reason, I commend our amendment to the Parliament.
I move amendment S1M-2883.1, to leave out from first "consent" to end and insert:
"planning consent for nuclear and other electricity power stations over 50 megawatts under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, is a responsibility devolved to Scottish Executive Ministers, but further notes that responsibility for UK energy policy is a matter for Westminster to decide and calls on Her Majesty's Government and the Scottish Executive to clarify unresolved issues in relation to the division of responsibilities in pursuit of a balanced sustainable energy policy."
The Liberal Democrats support the motion as intended. The unamended version of the motion could be read to mean that the Parliament intends to hand back to Westminster final decision-making powers on non-nuclear power stations. We will support the motion if it is amended to clarify what is, I am sure, its original intent.
Recently, the question whether nuclear power is devolved seems to have confused elected members in another place. I hope that the situation is now clear. The UK Government has overall control of energy policy, but planning decisions on new power stations are entirely a devolved matter. There is no reason to believe that anyone wishes to undevolve power over planning decisions, so the matter is closed.
Does one power not contradict the other?
I think that Sarah Boyack answered that question.
Although the matter is closed, I still want to use the rest of my allotted time, as it would be a shame to waste it. A more interesting debate concerns what Scotland's energy mix should be in the future. We need to look at what is desirable, what is possible and how that can be achieved.
At present, the breakdown of Scotland's electricity generation is that about 55 per cent comes from nuclear energy, roughly 30 per cent from coal and gas, 11 to 13 per cent from hydro energy, and 2 to 3 per cent from renewables and waste.
Does Nora Radcliffe accept that she has given the figures for market share? The figures for capacity are entirely different.
That is fair enough but, if we are to talk about what we should do in the future, we need to look at where things stand at present.
Our maximum domestic demand is 60 per cent of installed capacity, so Scotland is a net exporter of electricity. However, we cannot be complacent. On current expectations, all five of our major power stations—which are gas, coal and nuclear—will reach the end of their planned lifetimes in the next five to 30 years. Although it is not unlikely that it will be possible to extend the lifetimes of some stations, we need to think about and plan for the replacements that will be needed in the near to medium future.
I want to ask a simple question. Do the Liberal Democrats think that energy policy in Scotland should be determined by Scotland's needs or do they think that it should be determined by the needs of the UK? In other words, should we continue to be the fall guy in terms of our share of nuclear power? Should we not start to base our energy decisions on what is good for Scotland, rather than on what is needed by England?
I do not believe that the interests of Scotland and England are necessarily different.
If a significant proportion of replacement capacity is to come from renewable energy sources, a lot of planning will be required. We have much to do. First, renewables tend to be energy sources rather than fuels, which means that security of supply is a bit more difficult. One can depend on a fuel because it is available at any time of the day or season of the year. Wind, which is an energy source, will not generate electricity unless the wind is blowing.
Do the Liberal Democrats agree with the treaties that we signed up to at Rio de Janeiro and Kyoto? Do they identify with the UK targets for reducing gas emissions and so on?
There is no question but that we do.
Let me get back to where I left off. Time and tide wait for no man, so tidal energy is more dependable. However, the technology is still at the prototype stage. Investment in research and development is essential and we must be realistic about the time that will be necessary to allow us to develop the new technology. Wave energy in the north and in the Pentland and Moray firths has great potential—but it is still just potential. Those locations are a long way from the main concentrations of population.
Will the member give way?
No—the member is in her last minute and she has been very generous.
Our renewable energy sources are nowhere near either the customer or the infrastructure. Demography has set the pattern of power stations and power lines and the electricity network has constraints and bottlenecks even now. If we plan to have major generation in wild and remote parts of Scotland, and if we want to build lots of smaller generators to harness wind or to develop biomass opportunities, there will have to be a radical redesign of the network. If we want to continue to export electricity, the interconnectors to England and elsewhere will have to be upgraded. Those problems can all be solved, but they will not solve themselves. We have to tackle them and we have to begin now.
Incidentally, it should not be overlooked that the solution to the coming energy gap is not wholly on the supply side; we are hugely wasteful of energy and much of the gap could be closed by reducing demand.
I suppose I should finish by getting back to the topic of the debate—nuclear power stations. They may not emit carbon, but that is about all that I can find to say in favour of them. The current consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on managing radioactive waste safely invites public debate on nuclear waste storage. It cannot be sensible to create waste that remains dangerous for thousands of years, even if we think that we can store it safely. Any money to be spent on energy should be spent on new infrastructure, on reducing consumption and on developing renewables, and not on replacing nuclear power stations. For the price of a new nuclear power station we could buy an awful lot of much more sensible things.
We now move to the open debate. Time is very tight so I ask members to restrict their comments to a maximum of four minutes.
The debate so far has illustrated how tortuous it is and the level of mental gymnastics that is required to be a unionist. Unionists have to put all the impossibles together and, as Lewis Carroll said, believe them all at once.
Will the member give way?
Not yet, Nora—I am just recovering from the past few minutes.
In reality, this is a very simple question with a very simple answer. The very simple question is, does Scotland have the power to say no to nuclear power? Members will remember the old symbols that used to be on 2CVs throughout Scotland, with the slogan "Say no to nuclear power" usually repeated in many languages.
I used to have a 2CV.
I can certainly believe that, and it probably ran on cheese.
Is that the SNP energy policy?
Phil Gallie certainly speaks with enough energy. We could power a whole station with Phil alone.
The question is, can we say no to nuclear power? The question is very easy, but the tortuous answers that we hear in the chamber are quite remarkable and illustrate the problem with the devolved settlement. They illustrate the fact that the only clear and sensible settlement is independence. John Home Robertson finds the idea of independence very amusing, but he has not thought about it. He has not thought about it because it terrifies him. He is too frightened to think about it, and he is quite used to taking orders from elsewhere.
Will the member give way?
Not just now, Rhona Brankin. No.
John Home Robertson is so used to taking orders from elsewhere, and so used to nodding all the time when he is told to do things, that he cannot think for himself. That is the problem in this debate.
We see clearly that the Tories want to wreck the Scottish Parliament. We saw that yesterday.
I will come to Rhona Brankin's role in wrecking the Parliament in a moment.
We saw yesterday that the Tories want to cut the size of the Parliament, limit its powers and forget that there has been a constitutional change in politics in Scotland.
Does Mr Russell not accept that we have committed ourselves totally to this Parliament? We have offered constructive solutions to make the Parliament more workable, to help the devolution settlement.
No, I do not accept that at all. There has been no evidence of that whatever—and, if Mr Scott doubts that, he should read his speech from this morning.
The position of the Liberals is, as usual, fascinating. It, too, is tortuous. When this issue was debated at Westminster, every Liberal MP who voted voted for the SNP motion. It is clear that the Liberals simply must support our motion today, but they cannot do so and not support the Executive amendment, because to do that would be disloyal to their coalition colleagues.
Will the member give way?
I will take an intervention in a second.
Coalition politics is destroying the clear thinking of the Liberal Democrats.
In my opening sentence, I said that Liberal Democrats support the motion as intended. We do.
I do not know what "as intended" means. The motion is in the business bulletin—vote for it or do not vote for it.
The Labour position in the debate is the most interesting one. Labour members in Scotland must constantly look over their shoulders to ensure that they are allowed to say something and to ensure that we are allowed to implement the existing Scotland Act 1998. But there is no question about this: the power lies in Scotland. This Parliament has the power to say no to nuclear power.
Will the member give way?
No thank you, Mr McNulty—life is too short.
We can say no, and the powers of this Parliament are all that the debate is about. Anybody watching the debate would have to conclude that the simplest and clearest way to run Scotland is as an independent nation in which this chamber can make decisions for the people of Scotland. The debate has again illustrated that what we need is independence.
Mike Russell seems to have overlooked the fact that the Executive amendment actually strengthens the motion that his colleague moved.
Bruce Crawford has a bit of a reputation for generating hot air, but on this occasion he is generating only superfluous words. The nationalist motion takes 59 words to say what Brian Wilson said in half as many:
"If anyone wants to build a power station of any kind in Scotland, it will be a matter for the Scottish Executive to determine. End of story."
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, Alex. I have only four minutes.
As the Presiding Officer knows, we have 2,500 megawatts of generating capacity at Torness and Cockenzie in East Lothian, plus some very useful wind turbines on our skyline in the Lammermuir hills. I want to stress the importance of the electricity supply industry to the Scottish economy—not only to generate power for Scottish industries and households but as a valuable export to other parts of the United Kingdom. Scottish electricity exports are worth £250 million a year. That is the equivalent of the capital cost of the Holyrood building being earned by exports down the wire through the UK national grid every year in life. Evidently, our little Scotlanders in the nationalist party would be content to scale down the electricity generating industry in Scotland so that it would not have the capacity to export electricity. That is the logic of their position and of what Alex Neil said a minute or two ago. The nationalists' position would have the effect of exporting hundreds of valuable jobs to other parts of the UK. East Lothian, with 650 jobs at Torness and Cockenzie, is a powerhouse for the whole of the United Kingdom.
I understand that the SNP wants to find ways to raise its core message of independence in general conversation and I can guarantee that this morning's particular manifestation of independence, which would destroy a lot of jobs in my constituency, will attract quite a lot of attention in the coming year.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—I have only a couple of minutes and the matter is very important to my constituency.
I welcome the energy review that is being undertaken by my former colleagues at Westminster—not least because of the obvious need to begin the process of replacing power stations to provide secure supplies of electricity for future decades. A number of imperatives must be considered and delivered: we must increase energy efficiency and develop the use of renewables; we must control the depletion of fossil fuels; we must plan for adequate generating capacity for the whole of the United Kingdom; sooner or later we will have to construct a permanent repository for waste nuclear fuel—not for new waste but for waste that already exists; and we must minimise emissions of carbon dioxide in order to slow down the process of global warming. The last is the most important of all.
Those imperatives may lead to the conclusion that there is a strong environmental and economic case for replacing decommission capacity with new nuclear power stations. If there were proposals for a Hunterston C or a Torness B, I am sure that people in Ayrshire and East Lothian would judge them in the light of all relevant considerations, including their experience of the nuclear industry.
Let us have a rational debate about the serious white paper on energy when it is published later this year. I agree with what Lewis Macdonald said at the beginning of the debate: it is a tragedy that Professor Bert Whittington will not be with us to take part in that important debate. The issue is far too important to be trivialised by constitutional shenanigans, which is all that we have had from the Opposition today.
The fragmented way in which our nation is governed means that there are two distinct elements in any debate on nuclear power stations in Scotland: energy policy and planning consents. Devolution means that the Scottish people and those elected to the Scottish Parliament are deemed to be incapable of deciding for themselves what Scotland's energy policy should be. Scotland, an exporter of energy—primarily to England—is told that its energy policy must be determined by a Parliament in England. It is for the members of the unionist parties to reconcile that perverse reality.
If Mrs Ullrich had read the recent energy review published by the UK Government, she would be aware that the UK Government welcomes and supports the input of Scottish ministers to the formation of energy policy and is encouraging us to play an ever greater role in that process in the future.
What the minister needs to explain is why Scottish energy policy is formulated outwith Scotland. Until Scotland becomes a normal nation and retakes its political independence, the Scottish Parliament will not be allowed to decide how Scotland produces the energy that powers our nation.
I will address the subject on which London has decided that we can have a say: planning consents. As we have heard, under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, the power to grant or refuse planning consent in respect of an application to build a new nuclear power station in Scotland lies with the ministers in the devolved Parliament. There is no equivocation. That point is so clear that even that arch anti-devolutionist, the UK Minister of State for Industry, Energy and the Environment, Brian Wilson, has confirmed that planning permission is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. That is the position and that should be the end of it. The unhelpful meddling and muddying of the waters by Helen Liddell and George Foulkes can serve only to increase the uncertainty over the whole direction and development of energy policy in Scotland.
As an MSP representing the West of Scotland, I have a special interest in the direction of our future energy policy. Hunterston B is the biggest private sector employer in North Ayrshire. As an elected representative of the people employed at Hunterston, my priority is to ensure that those jobs are secured. At present, about 400 people are employed at the Hunterston site. By taking the decision that no nuclear new build will be allowed in Scotland, but that the Hunterston site will be designated as a centre of excellence in the generation of energy from renewable sources, we could remove the uncertainty that hangs over the jobs of the Hunterston workers. Denmark already employs thousands of people producing energy from renewable sources. So, too, could Scotland. We can safeguard the Hunterston jobs and even increase employment in North Ayrshire—an area of high unemployment.
The uncertainty over the direction of energy policy in Scotland has come about only because the new Labour Government has been turning somersaults over the issue. Much of the uncertainty surrounding the jobs at Hunterston has come about because the Minister of State—the aforementioned Brian Wilson—has floated the idea of a new nuclear station at Hunterston. That is the same Brian Wilson who, when running for election in 1987, publicly supported a Labour party resolution calling for the immediate mothballing of all nuclear power stations, including Hunterston.
Let us end the uncertainty. Let us use the limited powers that we have in the Parliament and ensure that the Executive ministers stand up to what will be considerable pressure from Westminster. I urge members to support the motion.
It is unfortunate that when a similar debate took place in Westminster the UK Government did not take the opportunity to close the discussion down. In fact, the Government gave succour to the SNP in raising the issue. If one reads the Official Report of the debate, it is not clear where responsibilities lie. Indeed, during that debate, the Liberal Democrat MP Alan Reid made it quite clear that he does not know where the relevant powers lie.
It is important that the issue is resolved for people who are for nuclear energy in Scotland and who believe that the Executive and the UK Government should support further nuclear development. I have no problem with declaring myself to be one of those people. The arguments have not demonstrated that Scotland will not have a significant energy gap. Furthermore, we have not demonstrated the capacity for renewables to deliver in a climate where, although we have great provision for wind power for example, in large tracts of Scotland the Ministry of Defence will not allow it to be exploited. Until such issues are resolved, it is pie in the sky to talk about certain capacity.
I condemn unreservedly the SNP and the despicable way in which Bruce Crawford—smiling as he is—has taken every opportunity to denigrate the Chapelcross nuclear power station. He has spoken out for cheap headlines time and again, yet his colleague Mr Russell visited the plant and soft-soaped the workers. Mr Russell did not give the speech that he gave today. He also did not turn up to back Chapelcross workers when the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets issued a ruling that puts the plant in danger of immediate closure—Mr Russell was absolutely invisible.
The SNP councillors on Dumfries and Galloway Council, who are not bound by SNP policy on anything—they are pro-stock transfer and pro-nuclear—unanimously passed a motion backing the plant.
Will the member give way?
No, I have heard all the drivel before.
One of the SNP councillors has constituents all the way down to the Solway. That councillor never mentions any of the issues on which Bruce Crawford comments in the Sunday papers. No wonder people have no confidence in the SNP's energy policy. We could not have any confidence that an independent Scotland run by you would even deliver any energy. Someone said that if the SNP were in power in Scotland, the last person out would have to turn off the lights—there would not be any lights with your policy on nuclear power.
I would prefer the Parliament to debate the nuclear industry positively. I want the Executive to use the devolved powers that it has to support new development and tell us what it will do to help people who want to advance job-creating proposals.
The Chapelcross nuclear power station employs 450 people and is a key economic player in lower Annandale. The issues are the same as those that John Home Roberston mentioned. In her speech about North Ayrshire, Kay Ullrich did not mention that she is not standing in the next election—perhaps that is what gave her so much to say. The one thing that we did not hear about from the SNP today was Finland. That is because Finland is pro-nuclear and is implementing new nuclear energy policies.
Let us not hear any more rubbish. Let us concentrate on the real issues of developing new nuclear stations in Scotland.
I remind members that, in the chamber, the word "you" refers to the Presiding Officer. I ask members to direct their remarks through the chair.
Here we are once again. Last week, the Tories debated an issue that is reserved to Westminster. This week, the SNP is cynically using the Scottish Parliament to unpick the edges of the Scotland Act 1998 as it has done so many times before.
The SNP is the party which, along with the Tories, did not participate in drawing up the blueprint for the Scottish Parliament in the Scottish Constitutional Convention and is now deliberately using the Parliament to put a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK. It is a sad old song.
Despite the position being made crystal clear last week in the House of Commons, the SNP is raising the same issue again in a desperate attempt to get publicity. Frankly, the debate is a complete waste of taxpayers' money.
Last week, Brian Wilson, the Minister of State for Industry, Energy and the Environment, said:
"The position is unambiguous. If anyone wants to build a power station of any kind in Scotland, it will be a matter for the Scottish Executive to determine. End of story."
Of course, it is not the end of the story for SNP members. It gives them what they regard as another opportunity to unpick the Scotland Act 1998.
Let us consider the facts instead of the myths that have been peddled by the SNP. The Scottish Executive has responsibility for planning in Scotland, including powers of consent for all new power stations and overhead electricity lines. It also has responsibility for the environment and the promotion of renewable energy and energy efficiency. Therefore, the Executive has to take a close interest in the environmental and wider sustainable development dimensions of energy policy.
The Executive has contributed significantly to the UK review of energy. In Scotland, we have devolved environmental obligations under European Union legislation, under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic—the OSPAR convention—and under the Executive's commitment to sustainable development. All of those have an important bearing on sustainable energy production.
Instead of bringing to the chamber a silly non-debate about some mythical new nuclear power station that is not being proposed, we should be talking about some of the crucial issues that are facing us. We should be talking about, for example, the long-term management of radioactive waste and spent fuel from existing nuclear power stations. More than 4,500 cu m of high and intermediate-level radioactive waste is currently stored in Scotland, some of which will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.
The issue is massive and, despite years of discussions and examination of the options, we are no nearer a solution to the problem, which is based on public acceptance, environmental protection and safety. That is why a vital consultation process has been in process with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the other devolved Administrations. We cannot make any decisions about nuclear power until we have resolved the issue of radioactive waste management. That is the Executive's position. In its submission to the UK energy review, the Executive said:
"no decisions on policy about the future of nuclear, and its necessary regulatory framework, can be taken before the results of that consultation process are available."
We must work in partnership with the UK Parliament to develop energy policy. It is my firm belief that Scotland's devolved responsibilities for energy efficiency and the promotion of renewable energy will be critical in filling the gap left by the possible retiral of nuclear power stations. Scotland's potential for further renewable energy development will be vital in the context of the 50-year horizon for the UK energy review.
We cannot afford to ignore the results of the research on renewable energy that was commissioned by the Executive. Scotland has the capacity to be self-sufficient in electricity from renewable energy and have plenty left over for the rest of the UK. There is enough potential energy from onshore wind power alone to meet Scotland's peak winter demand for electricity twice over. It is a huge challenge for Scotland and the UK, with implications for commercialisation and the Scottish economy.
I finish by saying to the SNP to get real. Let us not waste time. Let us behave like a grown-up Parliament. Let us have real debates about the management of radioactive waste, energy efficiency and Scotland's massive potential for renewable energy. Those are areas where we have an opportunity and a responsibility to make a contribution to the development of a sustainable energy policy for the 21st century and beyond. I support the Executive's amendment.
It is interesting to see the usual unity in the new Labour party when one ex-minister is anti-nuclear and the other ex-minister is pro-nuclear. Maybe that explains why they are ex-ministers.
Because the debate is on energy, I will take a minute to comment on this morning's news about BP and the salary increases awarded to senior executives. The chief executive receives £7 million a year while he makes 700 people redundant at Grangemouth. It is an utter disgrace. The top six directors pay themselves a total of £20 million a year and I do not think that that is a defensible position.
Will you address the motion?
I am going to speak to the motion now.
The critical issue relates to the Scotland Act 1998. That is where the powers of the Parliament and the relationship between Westminster and Holyrood are defined. It does not matter what Brian Wilson or George Foulkes says on a particular day. The reality is that the powers are defined in statute, not in a press release from Government ministers.
The Scotland Act 1998 is absolutely clear. Schedule 5 to the act lists all the reserved matters, which include energy. Under section D1 of schedule 5, the
"Generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity"
including
"The subject-matter of Part II of the Electricity Act 1989"
are matters reserved to Westminster. Only
"The subject-matter of Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990"
is a devolved matter.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am sorry. Rhona Brankin would not take an intervention so I am not taking hers—fair is fair.
Will the member give way?
I will take an intervention from Lewis Macdonald.
Alex Neil has quoted from schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. I am sure that, having seen the Executive's amendment, he will also have checked the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc) Order 1999. Will he accept that that order makes it clear that the functions to which he referred are now by statute
"exercisable by the Scottish Ministers instead of by the Minister of the Crown"?
They are indeed, but I refer the minister to sections 28 and 30 of the Scotland Act 1998, which totally negate the point that he has just made. Section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998, which defines the legislative powers of the Scottish Parliament, has a sting in the tail. Section 28(7) states:
"This section does not affect the power of the Parliament … to make laws for Scotland."
That underlines my earlier points. No matter what Westminster says, it can override the decisions and powers of the Scottish Parliament at any time, and it is easily done.
Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 shows that it is not a speech from Brian Wilson or George Foulkes that is needed; it is an order in council. A simple order in council does not require primary legislation or a vote in the House of Commons; it requires only that four privy councillors see the Queen and then they can sweep away the powers of the Parliament in one go.
New Labour has come to the Parliament and promised that we will make the decision. I remember new Labour's pledge that there would be no referendum before the legislation on the Parliament, but we did have not just one referendum; in effect, we had two. We cannot believe a word that new Labour says. The reality is that if the interests of England are primary, new Labour will do what is necessary and, in one swipe, take away the power of the Parliament to stop the proliferation of civil nuclear power in Scotland.
I congratulate David Mundell and Mike Russell on two highly entertaining speeches, which I enjoyed a great deal.
The Scottish Parliament information centre prepared for us an excellent document on Dounreay. It is a pity that nobody has mentioned Dounreay yet, so I shall. As members are aware, Dounreay is being decommissioned, which will be a bonanza for Caithness for generations to come. Hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent. In connection with that, I wish to make some points.
Mention was made of a centre of excellence. That is precisely what we should be thinking about as we decommission the reactors at Dounreay. Money is being poured in, and by taking young people and training them by working with colleges, universities and the Scottish Executive, we can create a skills pool for many years to come. We could have a dedicated skilled work force that could go to other parts of the world to decommission nuclear reactors. We should steal a lead in Scotland. We are going that way, and we should be proud of it and blow our trumpet loudly. I hope that Lewis Macdonald will take that message to Wendy Alexander.
Does Jamie Stone agree that the £4 billion that it will cost to decommission Dounreay will be paid by the taxpayer? Does he agree that SNP members have in no way even begun to explain where, in an independent Scotland, they would get that money?
Rhona Brankin raises an interesting subject. It is a nice tradition in Highland politics that the SNP candidate for the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross constituency generally says something different from the rest of the SNP. We have seen that again and again. I am interested to hear what my good friend Rob Gibson will say on this matter in the forthcoming election. Rhona Brankin puts her finger on it. I am glad to hear the "independence" word being raised. That is great, because it shovels votes away from the SNP in Caithness and Sutherland.
Jamie Stone has made an allegation that the SNP candidate in the constituency that he represents would change party policy and say something different. Could I have chapter and verse, please? I want quotes: when they were said, who said them and what the issue was.
I certainly will provide them. The remarks of Mr Sandy MacKenzie—who was a candidate in 1997—which I heard repeated, were dramatically different from what the SNP was saying in the rest of Scotland.
Give us the remarks.
Mr Stone is sitting down, Mr Russell.
Why are we discussing this issue today? Nuclear power stations clearly are an issue for us, but this debate is a chance for the SNP to raise the constitution in this chamber once again, to cast doubt over the constitution, to cast doubt over the powers of this Parliament and to cast doubt over our abilities to set out our long-term future in Scotland. The debate has been a complete waste of time from that perspective, because it is absolutely clear that decisions on nuclear power stations, and on all other power stations, are matters for Scottish Executive ministers, who are accountable to us in this chamber. Members would not think that if they listened to SNP speeches today.
Will the member give way?
No thank you.
Alex Neil's speech in particular represented a fantasy world inhabited by nationalists that is divorced from the reality of politics today. It is absolutely clear that in this chamber, and with our colleagues at UK level, we take our environmental responsibilities seriously. We also take seriously the responsibility of thinking about not the next two minutes of an SNP soundbite, but the next 10, 20 and 50 years and getting our energy, renewables and environmental policies right. Michael Meacher's review of nuclear waste is critical and is about the long term: it is a seven-year consultation. That might seem like a long time in electoral politics, but it is not when we are dealing with an issue of the magnitude of nuclear waste.
The nationalists did not comment on, congratulate us on or even acknowledge the fact that action is taking place now and we are going in the right direction. The key issue of energy efficiency, for example, was not mentioned at all by Bruce Crawford. If we are to have a rational debate on energy and the environment, we need to discuss energy efficiency, on which the Executive has done a huge amount since we were all elected in 1999. There is also the issue of supply. Rhona Brankin talked authoritatively about renewables. Those are the priorities of the Labour-Lib Dem Administration in Scotland, and they are absolutely right. We have seen a turnaround away from the approach taken by the Tories, which does not take into account our long-term commitments and our long-term responsibility to the environment.
The submission by the Executive to the UK energy review was a reasoned, considered and radical document. It considered the huge potential of renewable energy and the importance to Scotland of our energy industries. That was not reflected in Bruce Crawford's speech, and it was certainly not reflected in Mike Russell's speech. We need to take seriously our environmental responsibilities, and we have to acknowledge that we have a lot of nuclear generation. What did the SNP have to say about decommissioning? Absolutely nothing. Who will pay the bill for dealing with our nuclear waste legacy? There was not a word on that from the nationalists. The reason we did not hear a word is that separation would bring a massive cost. We need to work together on those issues, and not dismiss them.
Will the member give way?
No thank you. I am in my last minute.
The Labour party is clear about the long term. In this Parliament in the past couple of years we have focused on the expansion of wind energy. There is a long-term agenda of wave energy and photovoltaics, which are being pursued in Germany to huge effect. Those are the real challenges. The Labour party's targets in Scotland are to produce 30 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020 and 50 per cent by 2040. That is a massive agenda and a great opportunity. Let us focus on that, not on the constitutional wrangling that the SNP wants to raise in this chamber in the coming year and a half. It is a waste of the SNP's time. We will take the opportunity on every occasion to tell the SNP what we are doing in Government. We have a good record and we will defend it.
I say to Sarah Boyack that the doubts have been raised not by us, but by Labour MPs at Westminster. The Minister of State for Industry, Energy and the Environment says one thing and the Minister of State at the Scotland Office says another. We have received no clarification today other than an acknowledgement from the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning that Westminster will have the final say.
We have not heard from any Labour member how the Executive will deal with any future applications for new nuclear power stations. The continuing energy review clearly indicates that we are likely to get some. The people of Scotland deserve to know how the Executive will deal with those applications. They want to know who will make the final decision. Will it be made here or will it be made at Westminster, according to the wishes of someone else?
David Mundell's concluding remarks summed up the Conservative position. He talked about rubbish. It is a fact that nuclear power is not safe. We have not solved the problem of how to deal with nuclear waste.
Will the member give way?
No thank you.
That is precisely why it is not safe for us to proceed any further with nuclear power.
Will the member give way?
No thank you.
That is why the only sensible course of action in terms of the environment is to do nothing further. And how does nuclear waste relate to renewables? We cannot get rid of it; it will be here for generations. That is precisely why we need an answer now as to who will make the decision on planning matters and whether there will be an override. As Alex Neil indicated clearly, the potential for an override exists because of the Scotland Act 1998. There could be an override without any primary legislation. It would simply require an order in council.
We want to know where the Executive parties stand on the issue of new nuclear power stations and whether they will exercise their power. We want them to tell people now, in the run-up to the next election, whether they will agree to more nuclear power stations.
We move to wind-up speeches. Speakers should stick to the time allocated. Mike Rumbles has four minutes.
The SNP has chosen the same topic for debate today that it chose for a debate in Westminster last week. That is the SNP's choice, but SNP members seem to want to exploit for their own political purposes the ridiculous spat between Brian Wilson and George Foulkes about who will make the final decision on the construction of any proposed new nuclear power stations.
The hypothetical situation—and it is a hypothetical situation—that the SNP is getting at is whether Westminster can force the Executive to give planning approval for new nuclear power stations. Not satisfied with wasting Westminster debating time, the SNP is now wasting the Scottish Parliament's time too. Bruce Crawford was in the last minute of his speech before he mentioned what the debate was all about—independence. Lewis Macdonald made it clear that the final decision on planning consent for power stations remains with the Scottish Executive.
Will the member give way?
In a moment.
I was amazed by the Tories' speeches. John Scott said that the Tories were content with and had accepted devolution, but he still could not and would not accept the consequences of devolution. He is uninterested in devolution. His deference to London was plain to see.
Will the member give way?
In a moment. I was amused by John Scott's mischievous reference to a possible future Liberal Democrat-SNP coalition. Even his fantasies did not stretch to Tory participation in Government.
Mike Russell was even more entertaining.
Does Mike Russell accept that he has misquoted me?
Mike Russell might accept that, but I do not.
Mike Russell asked whether the Liberal Democrats would support the SNP's motion, and Nora Radcliffe made it clear that we would. The Liberal Democrats ask the SNP to support the Executive's technical amendment, which would strengthen the motion, as the deputy minister said.
Will the member answer a question that was asked by Mr Alan Reid, a Liberal colleague of his, in a House of Commons debate? The member seems to want to have his cake and eat it. Mr Reid said:
"If an application to build a nuclear power station in Scotland was turned down by the Scottish Executive, but the Government promoted legislation in this House to overturn that decision"—
the Alex Neil point—
"and grant planning permission, would the hon. Gentleman support that legislation?"—[Official Report, House of Commons, 5 March 2002; Vol 381, c 239.]
Alan Reid asked that question of Mr Bill Tynan, who, as usual, had no answer. What is the Liberal answer in Scotland to that key point? On Alex Neil's question, do the Liberals support the Scottish Parliament or Westminster?
That was a long intervention. I will deal with it in my conclusion.
Alex Neil said that he discovered that the Scottish Parliament is not a sovereign Parliament. What a surprise. What a discovery Alex has bumped into. I will deal with Mike Russell's point now. For practical purposes, the UK Government dare not overrule us on devolved matters. Alex Neil and Mike Russell know that—it is clear.
Neither the SNP nor the Tories can live with home rule, which is why, for different reasons, both try to muddy the water. The debate has been a ridiculous waste of time. Energy policy is reserved; planning is devolved. The motion, as amended by the Executive's technical amendment, again makes that clear.
I will break with the traditions of the debate by congratulating the nationalists, whose motion addresses two of their pet issues. The first is doing anything to wreck the Parliament's constitutional position and the second is spreading ridiculous ideas against nuclear energy. It is shameful that Scottish nationalists should take such a stand against nuclear power. Scotland has a proud record of generation. Almost 50 per cent of our generation is nuclear. That is safe and clean generation, and the SNP should take that on board.
The nationalists ask questions on constitutional issues. They should consider what we can achieve in the United Kingdom to meet their aims. The UK has signed up to Kyoto and to Rio. The SNP recognises the environmental advantages of working together. On that basis, it is natural that our energy policy should match that of the rest of the UK.
John Scott was right to draw attention to some confusion. He did that because ministers failed in their responsibility. It was irresponsible of Scotland Office minister George Foulkes to make such comments and induce a hurried statement from Brian Wilson. Ministers should stick together on such issues. I go along with Brian Wilson's interpretation.
Mr Neil's comments about the reality of the Scotland Act 1998 underline a factor that was built into the act. Ultimately, Westminster can take action, but it would be foolish of any Government, whether socialist, Tory, Liberal—God help us—or whatever, to override the wishes of people in Scotland on such issues. The siting of nuclear power stations is a planning issue that must be decided here.
The situation at Hunterston raises nuclear energy policy issues. John Home Robertson referred to Torness, which is not set to decommission before 2023. The situation at Hunterston is much more urgent, as it is to decommission in 2010 or 2011. We must consider energy requirements in 10 to 15 years. I support the move towards renewables, but to ensure that our economy and jobs stand firm and that we can develop in a modern world, we must have the required energy resources.
We must consider Hunterston and take decisions relatively early, as Brian Wilson suggested, on whether a rebuild programme is adopted, perhaps for a Hunterston C. It takes 10 years to design, develop and produce a nuclear power station. We do not have time on our hands. The need is urgent. I wish that the nationalists' motion had addressed that important issue and allowed us to discuss it rationally.
I recognise everybody's right to express reservations, but we should not mask the issues. Kay Ullrich suggested that Hunterston could be used for another purpose. As a supporter of the nuclear industry, I accept that the Hunterston site will be contaminated for many years. Decommissioning of the very successful and safe Hunterston A station is under way. Jamie Stone was right to say that we can gain from our expertise in and knowledge of nuclear energy. They can and must be put to good use.
I welcome the opportunity to restate unequivocally the Parliament's competence to make decisions on proposals for new power stations that will generate more than 50 megawatts in Scotland. It is remarkable that although Brian Adam was present during my opening speech, he did not hear what I said.
I repeat that the Scottish Executive is the competent authority to grant consent to construct and operate a power station and to grant deemed planning consent for all power stations that will generate more than 50 megawatts in Scotland. That power cannot be revoked without an order in council. Contrary to Alex Neil's contention, such an order in council would require to be approved in draft by this Parliament and the House of Commons.
The consent powers are not a new development.
Will the minister give way?
In a moment.
Decisions on consent for new power stations have always been taken in Scotland. The powers are executively devolved under the order that is mentioned in the Executive's amendment and are safeguarded by the Sewel convention. There is no question of Westminster's reclaiming those powers without this Parliament's consent.
Will the minister confirm that this Parliament has a right of veto in a disagreement over an order in council to override a decision of this Parliament?
It is not a matter of a veto power. That is the language of the United Nations. The Parliament has the power to grant or not to grant consent for such developments. Such decisions will not be taken in isolation. Before proposals reach Scottish ministers, they will go through a wide-ranging consultation process. We will hear from planning authorities on the planning implications of any such development; we will hear from Scottish Natural Heritage about the implications for the environment; we will hear from Historic Scotland about the areas that are of interest to it; and we will hear from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on the issues that are of interest to it. That is not an exhaustive list. We take seriously the comments that we receive from members of the public on such matters. Those representations remind us that, in exercising our powers of consent, we are directly accountable to the people of Scotland.
If a planning application for a nuclear power station were turned down not for specific reasons relating to that application but on the general presumption that the Scottish Executive is against nuclear power stations even though the UK Government has a presumption in favour of nuclear power, would that refusal of consent be open to challenge in the courts?
Consent to construct and operate a power station, as with planning consent, will be judged on a case-by-case basis. That has always been the case and it will continue to be the case. It is not a matter that is directly under the authority of energy policy, at UK level or any other level. The issues are distinct and I hope that that is now clear to all concerned.
The recent energy review outlined the options for meeting the demand for energy while safeguarding the environment. It recommended that priority be given to energy efficiency and renewable energy. There is no doubt that there is a tremendous untapped renewable resource in Scotland which will help us to meet our Kyoto commitment.
Will the minister give way?
No, I am conscious of my time.
The energy review also recommended that the nuclear option be kept open and that it should be debated widely. We agree with that. We will support energy efficiency and renewable energy but we must deal with the issue of how we manage radioactive waste in the long term as well. It goes without saying that decisions on how we do that must have widespread public support. We have already started to involve the public by issuing a consultation paper, "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely", which was produced jointly with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the other devolved Administrations. In Scotland, we are undertaking research into how best we can involve our people in making those decisions.
Coming to conclusions on our nuclear waste strategy will be a lengthy process. There will be difficult decisions to make, but it is vital that we openly engage with people and involve them in making those decisions. As Nora Radcliffe pointed out, it is also important that we continue to work with industry, the regulator and the Department of Trade and Industry on matters such as grid and network issues that affect energy in Scotland.
What we can say today is that all applications for new power stations of over 50 megawatts in Scotland will continue to come to Scottish ministers for consent. We will continue to exercise those powers in the full knowledge that we are accountable to the Scottish Parliament and to the Scottish people for the decisions that we make. That degree of accountability will also apply to decisions that we make about nuclear power, following the nuclear waste strategy conclusions.
In closing, I might do worse than echo the words of Brian Wilson on the matter:
"The position is unambiguous … End of story."
I want to talk about the reason why we are having this debate today. Energy policy is crucial to everyone in Scotland, as are the Government's powers in that area. At the end of today, the Scottish people have to be clear about who has the power to decide the future of nuclear build in Scotland and who is going to exercise that power. Even more important, we have to be sure about how they intend to exercise that power. That is the purpose of today's debate.
A non-nuclear future is demanded by the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland. Why? Because nuclear energy is inefficient. If not for the nuclear energy arrangement, Torness and Hunterston would be providing uneconomic power to Scotland. Nuclear energy is deadly. It produces waste that we will have to live with for tens of thousands of generations. That is not a sustainable situation for us to pass on to a future Scotland.
Fiona McLeod referred to the subsidies to the nuclear industry. Would she accept that, without subsidies, wind farming, wave power and other forms of renewable energy would not be sustainable?
I was talking about the nuclear energy agreement whereby Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy have to take non-economic energy from Torness and Hunterston. That is not the same as a subsidy. Producing nuclear energy costs Scottish consumers money.
Nuclear energy, as even Mr Gallie must know, is unnecessary. Scotland exports 26 per cent of the energy that we produce and we produce 26 per cent of our energy by nuclear power. Therefore, we do not need nuclear power. If we want to maintain an export market, which we do, we should keep in mind the Garrad Hassan report that showed that Scotland has the potential, through renewable energy, to provide for not only our own needs but 75 per cent of the UK's needs. If we do away with nuclear power and invest in renewable energy, we will make even more of a profit.
Bruce Crawford and Fiona McLeod have both said that Scotland can survive happily without nuclear output due to the excess in the current capacity and the potential of renewable energy. Perhaps they would care to explain how they would resolve the issues of grid stability that the current base load capacity provides.
My understanding, from a meeting at Scottish Power's grid control centre two weeks ago in Kirkintilloch, is that that problem is not impossible to work out. We already have back-up in Cruachan, for example, that will ensure the stability of the grid. In 1990, the Government in Denmark secured grid stability by giving leadership and support to the upgrading of the grid. If Denmark can do that, so can we. Does not the minister wish that he had the power that the Danish Government has to ensure that we have a secure, renewable and sustainable future?
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am short of time.
Nora Radcliffe talked about upgrading the grid. That issue will be resolved when the Government gives leadership and gets the power to do that. In 1990, Denmark—a small country like Scotland—upgraded its grid and is reaping the benefits of that now.
John Home Robertson gave us Labour's old scare stories, saying that, if people vote for the SNP and independence, 600 jobs will be lost in Torness. However, in Denmark, 14,000 jobs have been created in the renewable energy market, which completely dwarfs the 600 jobs that John Home Robertson talked about.
Phil Gallie said that, when the 1,200 megawatts from Hunterston disappear in 10 years' time, the lights will go out. I am sorry, but that is not the case. Scottish Power is already looking at producing 450 megawatts from a wind farm in Eaglesham and others are looking at producing 600 megawatts from wind farms in the Western Isles. That amount of energy almost meets the amount that Hunterston produces.
We have to get away from the continual scare stories. We are talking about a Scotland that can invest in and promote renewable energy. We are also talking about the powers of the Government. At the moment, the Scottish Government does not have the power to do more than promote renewable energy. I am delighted that the minister has confirmed that he has the power to say no to nuclear new build in Scotland. Will he confirm now that he will use that power and say no to nuclear new build in Scotland? The minister said that Westminster could overrule the Scottish Executive but that the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament would have to approve any overrule of that derogation. Will the minister make it clear that, if Westminster makes such a move, the Scottish Government will refuse to allow that power to be taken away from the Scottish people?
I would be happy to confirm what Fiona McLeod would have heard had she listened to my contribution, which is that those powers lie with Scottish ministers and there is no expectation that that position will change.
The minister should just say no. He should stand up for Scotland and say that those powers are ours and that we are keeping them, no matter what.
The other MSPs in the chamber have until 5 o'clock tonight to consider the motion and the amendment and to reach the conclusion that, if the minister cannot say that he will stand up for the Scottish people's rights on energy and non-nuclear build, they will stand up for them instead by voting for the SNP motion.
That concludes the debate on nuclear power stations.