Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
RT HON
DOUGLAS ALEXANDER
MP, DAVID CAIRNS
MP AND DR
JIM WILDGOOSE
4 JULY 2006
Q1 Chairman: Secretary of State, Minister
and Dr Wildgoose, good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of
the Scottish Affairs Committee, may I welcome you to this evidence
session on the Scotland Office Annual Report 2006. As in
previous years, the session will concentrate mainly on policy
and administration matters and we shall be sending you a set of
written questions on expenditure matters.[1]
Before we start on our detailed questions, do you have any opening
remarks you would like to make?
Mr Alexander: I shall keep them
very brief Mr Chairman. Firstly, thank you for the generosity
of allowing me to take off my jacket. Whatever lucidity I manage
in the forthcoming session has probably been heightened by my
ability to take off my jacket. I am happy of course to be here
in my first appearance before the Scottish Affairs Select Committee
to answer questions both on the Annual Report of the Scotland
Office and the Office of the Advocate General. I should perhaps
start simply by repeating the sentiment contained in the foreword
to the Annual Report. I am very proud indeed to have been asked
by the Prime Minister to serve as Secretary of State for Scotland
and I am conscious that it is both a great honour and indeed a
heavy responsibility. It would be remiss of me, by way of introductory
remarks, not to pay tribute to my very worthy predecessor, Alistair
Darling, who held this office for almost three years. I should
like to place on record my gratitude for his skilful stewardship
of the office. Today, I am supported by David Cairns, the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of the Scotland Office and also by Jim Wildgoose,
the Head of Office and I propose to bring them in as appropriate
in relation to particular questions. A further point that I should
make is that I am, of course, conscious that your Committee has
produced two recent reports, both of which I have read with interest.
In the first of them Putting Citizens First,[2]
the Committee recommended that the Arbuthnott report should be
debated in the Scottish Grand Committee and, as you know, the
upshot is that the report will be debated in a Government adjournment
debate on 20 July and we shall in due course provide a written
response to your latest report on the Sewel convention.
Q2 Chairman: Secretary of State, you
have two roles as the Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary
of State for Transport and, Minister, you are also wearing two
hats as a minister for Scotland and Northern Ireland. How do you
both manage your competing priorities?
Mr Alexander: By getting a little
less sleep has been my experience in recent weeks. The change
that was effected when my predecessor Alistair Darling was appointed
to his role, recognising the change in the office of Secretary
of State after devolution, was the right one and I do not believe
that the maintenance of the position as a full-time position of
Secretary of State for Scotland would have been the right way
forward. It was better, as the Prime Minister decided, to undertake
the role of Scottish Secretary in association with other duties
and responsibilities. In terms of the time that I am committing
to the job, I am sure not dissimilarly to other colleagues around
the table, there has not proved to be anything like a normal week
so far. However, I am conscious of the responsibilities that both
offices place upon me and I am seeking to discharge them. In terms
of giving shape and focus to the work that I have been undertaking
as well as the formal responsibilities, I have sought to prioritise
the work that I would like to take forward during my time as Scottish
Secretary. I would be keen to continue a focus that my predecessor
began and this is related to the economy; secondly, issues of
energy and climate change which have weighed heavily in recent
weeks as we anticipate the energy review being brought forward
by the Government; thirdly, I would want to maintain a focus on
the issue of poverty, not least given that there is a very close
interface between policies being taken forward by the Scottish
Executive and indeed by the UK Government as we meet the challenge
of addressing poverty in Scotland.
David Cairns: Obviously the general
themes of the work that we do are those which have been set out
by the Secretary of State. My particular role as Parliamentary
Under-Secretary has been focusing a great deal on the parliamentary
processes that we go through, not just in terms of appearing before
your Committee but also Scotland Office questions and also the
Scotland Act orders which I take through, which are outlined in
the Annual Report, like the one we did last week on the River
Tweed; the order was on the River Tweed, we obviously did not
do it on the River Tweed. I must say it excited more press interest
than any of the other ones we have done. As the Secretary of State
says, there is no such thing as a typical week, that is true for
all MPs, so a lot of the way in which the workload is structured
simply depends on what tasks have to be done in that particular
week. In relation to the specific point about Northern Ireland,
it is clearly our hope to have devolution restored to Northern
Ireland by 24 November and my appointment is very much a temporary
appointment up to that point where we hope we can actually hand
the day-to-day governing of Northern Ireland and all the suite
of devolved powers that the Assembly currently has back to an
executive of locally elected members of the Assembly.
Q3 Chairman: There are seven days
in a week. How much time do you spend as the Secretary of State
for Scotland?
Mr Alexander: I would not, in
clear conscious, be able to give you any numbers attached to the
respective roles, partly because I am relatively new to the position,
partly because there has literally not been one week the same
as the last in the six or seven weeks since I have held the position.
Certainly I have not found difficulties with it. It was a matter
that I discussed with my predecessor, Alistair Darling, on the
day of the re-shuffle and he assured me that by careful diary-keeping,
by judicious determination of where one needs to be, whether in
Dover House or the Department for Transport, it was an undertaking
which was achievable. On the basis of Alistair's success in the
post for almost three years, that gives me confidence that, notwithstanding
my own relatively recent appointment, it is a balance which can
effectively be struck.
Q4 Mr MacDougall: Secretary of State,
in your opening remarks you touched on the Government's energy
review paper. Clearly within the energy review our anticipation
is that it would be impossible to plan the future needs of the
country's energy supply without considering further nuclear power
stations. In that respect, certain members of the Scottish Parliament
have already given an opinion and in fact oppose such increase
in nuclear capacity. In that respect, what powers, what legal
options would the Government have should a situation arise where
the Scottish Executive, for example, did not give planning consent
as it was required to do for the construction of a new power station
which was designed by Government to meet those future needs in
Scotland? In respect of those legal actions, how could the UK
Government proceed under those circumstances should planning permission
be refused?
Mr Alexander: There are no powers
for the UK Government to impose new nuclear power plants in Scotland
against the wishes of the Scottish Executive. You are right in
recognising that one of the key issues of the energy review which
are still under discussion with colleagues is this issue of energy
supply. It will also focus on issues of energy efficiency and
have a particular focus in terms of energy supply on the issue
of renewables where there has been very effective joint working
between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government for some
time. The devolution settlement, both in terms of the devolved
nature of planning powers and also a specific clause contained
within the 1989 Electricity Act make clear that the decisions
in terms of new build nuclear power stations would be taken north
of the border by the Scottish Executive. That being said, of course
in terms of the present energy mix the fact that a considerable
proportion of Scotland's energy supply is provided both by Torness
and Hunterston reflects the fact that already a different balance
is being struck between Scotland and other parts of the United
Kingdom. The position is clear and I repeated it again today at
Scottish questions and indeed in the previous questions on the
floor of the House: there is no question, as some both within
Westminster and indeed north of the border have sought to suggest,
that notwithstanding the publication of the energy review, a Westminster
Government would be able to or would seek to impose its will in
relation to new build nuclear plants on the Scottish Executive.
Q5 Mr MacDougall: In that respect
then, the total responsibility of meeting Scotland's future energy
needs of whatever capacity will be left to the Scottish Parliament.
Would that be the case or would that not be the case in terms
of nuclear capacity?
Mr Alexander: What I have described
is a situation specifically in relation to new build nuclear facilities.
Of course it remains the case that we have an integrated United
Kingdom grid, of course it remains the case that we have worked
very closely with the Scottish Executive, for example on the issue
of renewables, and we should of course continue that dialogue
with the Scottish Executive in light of the emerging findings
of the energy review. The discrete position, which is the issue
which has attracted so much publicity on the part of Opposition
politicians in recent months, has of course been the more contentious
issue of whether there would be the capability to establish new
build nuclear facilities.
Q6 Danny Alexander: It is perfectly
conceivable to have circumstances in which you would have a result
of an energy review at UK level which was promoting the idea of
new nuclear power station whilst at the same time, having a political
composition in this Scottish Parliament which was opposed to them.
In those circumstances would you see your role as Secretary of
State for Scotland as being to argue caution on Scotland's behalf
within the Cabinet or working to persuade the Scottish Executive
to implement the conclusions of the energy review?
Mr Alexander: I am reminded of
an American politician who was asked a similar question. She said
"I do not make predictions, least of all about the future".
You are inviting me to indulge in certain hypotheticals. Let us
first of all await the outcome of the energy review; we are expecting
that in the weeks to come. Thereafter, I am not sure it would
be wise either as Scottish Secretary or indeed for any of us at
this stage to predict with any certainty what would be the composition
of the Scottish Parliament or indeed the composition of the Scottish
Executive post the coming Scottish elections taking place next
year.
Q7 Mr MacNeil: Given that the current
First Minister in Scotland has not been unequivocal about his
position on new build nuclear power stations and if, come next
May—unlikely, but we hope—we have a new First Minister
in Scotland who says no, do I understand you clearly that there
is absolutely no chance of Westminster interfering in an SNP Government's
no.
Mr Alexander: I am not sure that
a Select Committee appearance is the appropriate point at which
to question what appears to be the underlying assumption of your
question which is that there will be a different First Minister.
Q8 Mr MacNeil: If there is.
Mr Alexander: Of course I shall
be working with colleagues to ensure that that is not the case
because I believe that Scotland's interests are better served
by the stability than the separatism that others around the table
advocate. That being said, it is a matter of record that I have
spoken with Jack McConnell, indeed I spoke to him only at the
weekend on the issue of the energy review and we are discussing
matters in anticipation of the energy review being produced. That
is entirely appropriate. The Scottish Executive have already made
a submission to the energy review that reflected what has been
its long-standing position which is that there are remaining issues
to be resolved in relation to, let us say, nuclear waste and that
is why I welcome the fact that we have been working effectively
and collaboratively with the Scottish Executive as a UK Government,
as part of the CoRWM process and that is a parallel process which
continues but reflects the fact that it is perfectly capable on
these kinds of issues to find a way of working effectively with
the devolved administration.
Q9 Mr MacNeil: But on the substance
of the point, if Scotland says no through the SNP, will you be
quite happy?
Mr Alexander: As I say, I am not
anticipating the outcome that you are suggesting.
Q10 Mr MacNeil: If.
Mr Alexander: I am saying that
the kind of scare tactics being employed by the Scottish National
Party, somehow desperately seeking a quotation from myself and
from others which would allow you to misrepresent the position
of the British Government in the months ahead of the May election,
has no foundation in fact and I do not know how I could have stated
my position more clearly than in answer to Mr MacDougall's question.
Q11 Mr MacNeil: It is not my wish
to scare you, but I just want to know unequivocally that if we
have a SNP Government next May, the Westminster Government will
respect that.
Mr Alexander: That is not a scenario
that I either envisage or would wish to see in the interests of
the Scottish people.
Mr MacNeil: I have tried three times.
Q12 David Mundell: Whatever the make-up
of the Scottish Executive and however it is sustained, my constituents
who would, very much as I would, wish to see a new power station
on the Chapel Cross site are increasingly concerned that even
if the energy review comes out in favour of new nuclear power
stations the uncertainty which surrounds the position in Scotland
and the outright hostility of some politicians in Scotland to
the nuclear industry will actually put off the private financiers
who ultimately will be investing in the industry. How do you see
your role, or indeed the role of others in trying to give some
certainty to investors that, if they want to go ahead with a new
nuclear power station in Scotland and there is a Scottish Executive
that is at least not committed to veto it, that investment is
a good one?
Mr Alexander: If I were as concerned
as you about issues of certainty, I am not sure I would appoint
Zac Goldsmith to my policy commission looking at these and other
related issues. The degree of uncertainty that you describe in
terms of the long-term planning horizons involved in power generation
broaden the issue beyond simply one of Scotland. As I say, if
there is uncertainty, I cannot say that I have any clear idea
as to what the principal Opposition in Westminster is advocating
at this stage and that no doubt is a consideration for the industry
far beyond the borders of Scotland.
Q13 Gordon Banks: Just taking the
energy situation a little bit away from nuclear and onto renewables,
I was wondering in your discussions with the First Minister what
discussions you have relating to the renewables process and also
what concerns you may have in relation to the time it takes to
get planning applications through, even to get a yes or no for,
say, wind farms that often get referred back to the Scottish Executive
for a subsequent decision.
Mr Alexander: You are right certainly
in recognising that this is one of the areas of conversation between
us at a UK level and the Scottish Executive; indeed I was discussing
the issue of renewables with the First Minister only on Sunday.
You are also right in recognising that there have been considerable
blockages within the planning system to specific applications,
but it would not be appropriate for me to direct the First Minister
in terms of the planning regime, which is a devolved matter and
therefore better addressed directly by the Scottish Executive.
It is however the case, as you say, that there is a significant
number of applications, principally for wind farms but renewable
energy sites within Scotland and that is a matter of which I know
the First Minister is aware because he sees the real opportunities
not just for Scotland in terms of electricity and power generation,
but also in terms of the manufacturing sector where there is a
genuine opportunity for Scotland to assert real leadership and
to grasp the opportunities which have been provided both by the
targets being set and worked towards by the Scottish Executive
but also the targets that are being worked towards and set by
the UK Government on renewables.
Q14 Mr Davidson: May I just seek
clarification on the point about the powers of the Scottish Executive
in relation to planning and power? Do I take it from what you
say that as well as being able to make individual decisions on,
say, wind farms or nuclear power stations, the Scottish Executive
also have the power to decide on planning grounds in principle
that there would be no wind farms or no nuclear power stations
in Scotland at all?
Mr Alexander: The corpus of planning
legislation which preceded devolution has been transferred to
the Scottish Parliament. It is not for me to speculate as to how
that could be re-written in the future according to the will of
the Scottish Parliament in relation to planning law, but it is
the case that planning law has been devolved and therefore it
is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to amend planning
law. I cannot say I anticipate the scenario that you describe,
given that there have been, as I understand it, recent changes
in the planning legislation in Holyrood within the last couple
of years.
Q15 Danny Alexander: You will be
aware that one of the constraints on the development of renewable
energy is the electricity transmission infrastructure within Scotland
which is a UK responsibility through the regulation by Ofgem.
I wonder whether you have had any discussions, either with the
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or indeed with Ofgem,
about the proposals which have been brought forward to develop
more of a sub-sea electricity transmission network around Scotland,
particularly to facilitate some of the offshore and marine renewable
sources, particularly wave and tidal power as well as offshore
wind, which a lot of people believe have real potential to transform
Scotland's energy generation over the next 10 to 20 years.
Mr Alexander: The issue of the
electricity grid and the transmission of electricity within Scotland
is a matter that I have discussed with the Secretary of State
for Trade and Industry who is coordinating the Government's response
and now coordinating the Government's review of energy policies
and it is appropriate that I have done so. It is also fair to
acknowledge however that in terms of the level of maturity of
the technologies, there is certainly a disparity between deep-sea
renewables and inshore renewables relative to the facility to
have onshore wind developments at this stage. In that sense it
is not a straightforward choice between one or the other; the
relative development of the technologies is at different stages.
I can assure you that this is a matter which I have discussed
with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in anticipation
of the energy review which is coming out in due course.
Q16 Danny Alexander: But you will
be aware that some of those technologies may only be two or three
years away from being commercially viable and that, given the
constraints of the legal framework that Ofgem has put on taking
strategic decisions about the transmission infrastructure, to
take a decision, for example, to go down the sub-sea route actually
requires an act of political leadership; it is not one that can
simply be left to the Ofgem mechanism. I wonder whether that is
something that you have looked at.
Mr Alexander: It is certainly
the case that both the electricity industry and Ofgem as regulator
have recognised for some years the need to reinforce existing
grid lengths which now date back to the 1950s and to the 1960s.
Those discussions do continue. The major expansion of renewables
generation in the Highlands and Islands will require an upgrading
of the high voltage transmission grid as you have suggested and
it is fair to acknowledge, in light of my earlier point, that
that is true whether you are talking about onshore or indeed whether
you are talking about offshore. These are matters which continue
to be discussed.
Q17 Gordon Banks: Just on the transmission
issue again and linking back to my earlier question on renewables,
the issue of transmission lines is a big issue in many constituencies
in Scotland. I just wondered whether, in your discussions with
the First Minister, you have considered the difficulties that
might be apparent should the transmission line be delayed for
any design reasons and how that will affect Scotland's renewable
energy targets?
Mr Alexander: Anybody who has
travelled up the A9 is aware of the strength of feeling on these
particular issues. Consent powers for any new transmission line
under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, the Act that I referred
to in one of my earlier answers, are a matter for Scottish Executive
ministers and it would not be appropriate for me, given that the
proposals for an upgrade are now with the Executive, to comment
further as it is ultimately a matter for the Scottish Executive.
Q18 Chairman: We have made good progress
in achieving renewable energy and it is desirable to have wind,
wave, hydro power, nuclear and solar energy in Scotland, but do
you not think it would be a mistake ultimately to rule out wind
farms in principle, leaving Scotland to rely heavily on imported
energy from overseas?
Mr Alexander: There is something
of a risk that in these debates in a Scottish context we, as I
said in one interview, see the world through the wrong end of
the telescope. Of course you are right to recognise that we will
face challenges in the years ahead, both at a Scottish level and
right across the United Kingdom, in terms of the diversity of
our energy supplies, the security of our energy supplies and indeed,
in a European context, wearing my previous hat as the Europe Minister,
the effectiveness of a genuinely open market across Europe in
terms of energy supplies. While all of that is true, the appropriate
way to address these issues is to undertake the review that the
Prime Minister has announced. Perhaps inevitably the coverage
has predominantly focused on the issue of nuclear, but the Prime
Minister has been at pains to make clear both internally and externally
that as well as this specific issue of nuclear energy production
there are also related challenges both in terms of renewables
and also in terms of energy efficiency. In my discussions with
the First Minister, there has been a recognition of the importance
of the energy review in providing a means by which these issues
can be better explored. Frankly we are in circumstances where
energy prices have been rising for recent years. One need only
reflect on the dispute between Russia and the Ukraine at the turn
of the year, around January, to reveal the extent to which, not
just in Britain but across Europe, there was heightened concern
as to security of supplies following that particular incident.
I think the right approach at this stage is to have the review,
not to anticipate today what will be the findings of a review
that will be published fairly shortly. You are right to recognise
that one of the issues we do need to have regard for is the security
of supply. That is why I welcome the steps that the Scottish Executive
has taken and indeed other colleagues in Government have taken
to make sure that under the renewables obligation we have been
driving up the proportion of our fuel that comes through renewable
production.
Q19 Mr Walker: Moving on to the really
big issue, there has been quite a lot of coverage in the papers
over the last couple of weeks—I am sure you will have seen
it, there is interest north of the border and growing interest
south of the border—of the future of Gaelic television in
Scotland. Are we going to get a Scottish television channel? If
so, what are your views on that, what do you think it should be
broadcasting and where do you think it should be based?
Mr Alexander: A recent report
prepared for the Committee of interested parties, of which the
Scotland Office is but one part, along with the Gaelic Media Service,
BBC, Ofcom, the Scottish Executive and DCMS, identified two models
for taking forward a Gaelic channel: a joint venture between the
BBC and the Gaelic Media Service or a BBC licence service. Further
work is now being undertaken to put flesh on the bones of these
two options and how future governance arrangements might work.
Business plans are also being worked up under these models but
that is where the situation rests at the moment. In terms of the
involvement of the Scotland Office, it has been broadly a role
that I would describe as a facilitation role, but it has been
a broadly successful role in bringing together a number of interested
parties around the table and that is reflected in the report that
was published back in April.
1 See Ev 18 Back
2
Putting Citizens First: the Report from the Commission
on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems. Scottish Affairs Committee's
Third Report of Session 2005-06, HC 924. Back
| 
