SNP's nuclear reaction

Published on Wednesday 7 May 2008 19:56

IT WAS a straightforward question with an apparently straightforward answer – what responsibilities are devolved in relation to any decision to commission and locate a new nuclear power station in Scotland?

But the question, by Mike Weir, the SNP MP for Angus, certainly touched a raw nerve on domestic policy north and south of the border. The confusion and debate it caused has been revealed in a freedom of information request published by the Scottish Government. This shows e-mail correspondence between civil servants discussing how the question should be answered.

The First Minister, Alex Salmond, has made it clear that he wants Scotland to be a nuclear-free country both in energy supply and weapons. He has argued that renewables will be able to fill the energy gap.

His Labour predecessor, Jack McConnell, struck a deal with the Liberal Democrats that did not allow any nuclear plants to be built in Scotland until the issue of nuclear waste was resolved.

However, in its effort to find a "carbon-free" alternative to fossil fuels (or at least one that is internationally safer than gas), the UK Labour government has said that Britain should go nuclear. This stance reflects concerns that renewable energy, through wind, waves, or sun is unreliable, unproven and a long way off being properly developed.

Given the UK government's position on controlling strategic energy, there has been a lingering suspicion that ministers in Westminster may try to bypass Holyrood and force Scotland to take a new nuclear plant.

Weir said: "I think, currently, UK ministers accept this is the responsibility for the Scottish Parliament, but there is always the suspicion that at some point they will try to sneak in nuclear power stations by the back door and we have to guard against that."

The discussions by civil servants around Weir's question were illuminating only in that they served to cloud the issue.

In one e-mail Colin Forsyth from the Scottish Office admitted: "I suspect confusion (real or pretended) over consent powers isn't going away any time soon."

This suggested that some more clarity is needed in the law regarding what is devolved and what is not. It is certainly something that could end up on the table of Sir Kenneth Calman's constitutional commission.

Another civil servant, Ian Mitchell, e-mailed Forsyth, summing up the confusion. He wrote: "The procedures to be followed would be the same as those used regularly to deal with applications for wind farms above 50 megawatts. These require consultation with planning authorities before a section 36 consent, and deemed planning consent, is issued by Energy Division.

"If section 36 was not executively devolved then my understanding is that an application for a new power station would have to come through the planning system."

The issue would be if the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Berr) could use its macro-energy powers to make a decision, and whether planning consent would then even be needed.

Nevertheless, Forsyth then decided that Electricity Act powers and Scotland Act planning powers meant that the Scottish Government would have the final say. This formed the basis of the reply to Weir by Chancellor Alistair Darling, a Labour MP for Edinburgh. But Forsyth hinted things could change.

"This, of course is offered in terms of the devolution settlement as it stands," he said. "We are not in the business of speculating about what could be hugely controversial changes to existing legislation."

Certainly, McConnell had always been clear that this was the case. In May 2005 he answered a question from Christine Graham, saying: "I want to be clear about nuclear power stations. We have the powers to stop new nuclear power stations being built in Scotland and we will use those powers until the issues of nuclear waste have been resolved."

But the debate has hardened views on a need to clarify energy powers. There have been attempts made before by Westminster ministers to circumnavigate the Scottish government on the issue.

In 2002, George Foulkes, then a Scottish Office minister and now an MSP, famously suggested that the UK government may take this approach to secure energy supply. His comments led to Tony Blair writing to Alex Salmond to state that the UK government would not attempt to do that.

Former Labour energy minister in Holyrood, Allan Wilson, pointed out that planning powers are very limited.

"What it means is that they can only make a decision on planning grounds not on the political principle of being pro- or anti- nuclear," he said. "By declaring that they will object to nuclear power stations on principle, they could be breaking the law."

A source close to Salmond said that the First Minister wants the law to be changed to devolve all energy powers to Scotland, in order to provide complete clarity on the issue.

"There is a real problem with who is responsible for what and how decisions can be made," he said. "The only way this can be resolved is for complete powers over energy policy to be devolved to the Scottish Government. This is of course a long-held SNP position and actually supports our arguments for independence."

He went on to say: "We are clear that no nuclear power plants could be built in Scotland without the Scottish Government's permission because of planning powers we hold under the Scotland Act."