The
Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Allan Wilson):
I welcome the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Executive. I
will try to address the points that members have raised, but if I cannot do
so, I will get back to members.
Some members have argued that they need more time to decide on the bill. I
recognise that it is always helpful to have more time, but with the greatest
respect, I point out—as did the convener of the Enterprise and Culture
Committee last week—that the bill has been in the public domain for two
months, and it has even occasioned Mr Mundell getting to a local
consultation meeting in Prestwick during that period. Beyond that,
consultation on underlying issues has been taking place for months and,
indeed, years.
Chris Ballance:
Will the minister give way?
Allan Wilson:
If Chris Ballance will let me develop the point, he can come in.
The argument is that the bill somehow or other came out of the blue, and, of
course, that is nonsense. As Jamie Stone said, the argument for more time is
a smokescreen for more constitutional navel gazing, which is as useful as
the Parliament debating how many angels could dance on the end of a needle
or addressing J M Barrie's classic philosophical question, "Do You Believe
in Fairies?" As Peter Pan said:
"If you believe ... clap your hands".
Alasdair Morgan:
rose—
Allan Wilson:
Perhaps Mr Morgan is going to clap his hands.
Alasdair Morgan:
Does the minister not agree that it is not constitutional navel gazing to
say that, given that the bill rightly says that the Scottish ministers
should be consulted on certain things, it would not be unreasonable for them
to ask whether they could also be consulted about fuel management? Although
fuel management is a reserved issue, it would be reasonable for the Scottish
ministers to be consulted on it, so why has it been specifically excluded?
Allan Wilson:
I will come to Alasdair Morgan's and Roseanna Cunningham's point about the
need for a debate. I recognise that fuel processing and reprocessing raise
environmental concerns, but we must not forget that, if proposals were made
for a processing or reprocessing facility in Scotland, we would still
determine policy through our existing responsibilities for environmental
regulation and planning. It is not the case that we are, or would be, silent
on the aspects of fuel processing or reprocessing that would impact on
Scotland.
Roseanna Cunningham said that there was a need for a national debate in
Scotland on radioactive waste. I agree, and that is why we have set up the
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management at UK level—when I say "we", I
mean the UK Government. CORWM is well aware of Scottish concerns on
radioactive waste management, and public engagement is the key to that
process.
Roseanna Cunningham:
Why not debate that?
Allan Wilson:
I am quite happy for that to be debated here, as well as in the wider
context of the UK. In my opinion, however, that would be more constitutional
navel gazing on the part of nationalists.
The bill establishes the framework for much of the Executive's ambition to
develop our marine renewable resource. The contribution of marine energy is
vital if our ambition to achieve the 40 per cent renewable energy target by
2020 is to be realised. There has been much gnashing of teeth about that
particular ambition but, without the bill, it cannot be achieved. The bill
advances our ability to promote renewable energy of all kinds, by releasing
to the Executive those funds that are generated by the auction of green
certificates.
Phil Gallie:
Just how will the minister be able to achieve the renewables target while
maintaining the cost of units at its current low level and, at the same
time, guaranteeing supply over the period that the target covers?
[Interruption.]
The Deputy Presiding
Officer: Before the
minister answers, I call the meeting to order. There is a very high volume
of conversation around the chamber.
Allan Wilson:
The issue of security of supply is fundamental to the debate—which Roseanna
Cunningham and others want—on our future energy needs. That question will
drive the direction in which the debate goes.
I have been noting with some interest the Enterprise and Culture Committee's
inquiry into renewable energy and the evidence that has been given by
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd and others, to which Phil Gallie referred. The
committee's deliberations about that will be welcome. Security of supply and
the questions that that poses for the development of the UK's energy policy
will be critical. The only way in which we can achieve the target and retain
security of supply is through BETTA and a single, integrated UK energy
market.
Mr Stone:
The minister mentioned the Enterprise and Culture Committee's renewable
energy inquiry. He will recall my point that the prosperity of the north is
much linked to the decommissioning of Dounreay. Does he agree that it is
vital that the NDA continues that flexible policy, which involves local
decision making and which builds on the local skills pool, so that the
policy can continue to be a world beater?
Allan Wilson:
I agree with that. I welcome the opportunity to repeat to the Parliament,
and to the country at large, the fact that we are global leaders in nuclear
technology. We have built up that expertise over many generations and we
export it to the rest of the world. A critical proposal for the nuclear
decommissioning authority is that it will have a duty to develop and
maintain a skills base to undertake decommissioning. We will expect the NDA
to take forward the excellent work that has been done in the areas of
decommissioning skills and qualifications, which have been evident in
Caithness, in Mr Stone's constituency, where the UK Atomic Energy Authority
has worked in partnership with local enterprise agencies and learning
providers to export that skills base to other parts of the UK and Europe.
Mr Home Robertson:
The minister has been talking about decommissioning. I hope that he is not
losing sight of the prospects for nuclear commissioning in Scotland, too. If
we are serious about CO2 emissions and about security of supply, we must
have new nuclear facilities.
Allan Wilson:
The serious issue of the source of supply for future energy generation goes
to the heart of the matter of the security of the supply system, which I
mentioned previously. As Christine May said, a UK energy market is not only
good for Scotland; it is indispensable. Those who support the Executive's
renewable energy targets—or who, like the Greens, seek to exceed them—must,
if we are to deliver those targets and sell and export that renewable energy
capacity, be able to answer the question, "Where do we have to sell it?"
That is not a rhetorical question—we have to sell it to the rest of the UK.
Chris Ballance:
rose—
Allan Wilson:
I said that it was not a rhetorical question. [Laughter.]
Chris Ballance:
Nevertheless—
The Presiding Officer
(Mr George Reid):
Order. The minister is his last minute.
Richard Lochhead:
If it is not a rhetorical question, the minister should let Chris Ballance
answer it.
Chris Ballance:
rose—
The Presiding Officer:
No.
Allan Wilson:
I am sorry—I cannot give way.
Obviously, I meant to say that it was a rhetorical question.
Why should England and Wales, or the rest of the UK, which is our biggest
market, buy from Scotland, with all the disadvantages of transmission loss
that would ensue? There will be hydro benefit and massive advantages to
Scotland in spreading the investment in increasing grid capacity throughout
the UK. That is essential if we are going to sell renewable capacity beyond
our shores. Separation of Scotland from its biggest market for renewable
generation, as suggested by both the NATS and the Greens, would, as Susan
Deacon said, be catastrophic for the renewables sector and would kill stone
dead the growth of renewables-related economic and employment development. |
