Scotland Bill

I am sure the noble Lord is absolutely right. At the core of this—maybe not the right word—at the heart of it is the safety case, which would be determined by the independent Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. The noble Lord raised the point, which we will come on to, about other issues leading to issues about planning. It is not only planning because in 1999 there was executive devolution that transferred to Scottish Ministers powers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act with regard to giving permission for power stations in excess of 50 megawatts, and that would include any future nuclear power stations. I perhaps interpret the concerns to include how that would operate. To be fair, more generally in planning it probably makes sense to have planning powers. In the debate on the Scotland Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that, "““an Act of the Scottish parliament containing provisions about water pollution from coal-mines or dust from open-cast coal-mining would affect the reserved matter of coal-mining. If the courts were to apply a literal approach, they could hold that these provisions related to the reserved matter and would therefore be beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament. This would make a nonsense of the devolution of pollution control””.—[Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 819.]" There is some good sense that there should be planning considerations. I should also perhaps draw to the attention of the Committee a decision in the Outer House, Court of Session last year by Lord McEwan in a petition of Dulce Packard and others for judicial review. He said: "““The best guidance is the Lewis case (the mixed redevelopment at Redcar on Teesside). It is quite clear from the case that the Minister’s position is quite different from someone holding a judicial or quasi judicial office. All the Minister has to do is to consider genuinely the inquiry report and the objections””." Clearly, we have not yet had any application. But he went on to quote from the Lewis case and the judgment of Lord Justice Rix. "““So the test would be whether there is an appearance of predetermination in the sense of a mind closed to the planning merits of the decision in question””." It would be wrong to speculate what would happen if any company applied for planning permission and was turned down. It is a high test, which I think Lord McEwan made clear. Nevertheless, he went on to say that the, "““test is applicable, the fair minded and informed observer must be taken to appreciate that predisposition is not predetermination””." But evidence of predetermination might be relevant. I had better stop there because one never knows when one might find oneself having to go down that path. In saying this, I hope I can give some assurance that the Government believe that the balance in the Scotland Act is right. As I have indicated, the national policy statement, which was ratified last year, provides for enough sites across the United Kingdom for a sufficient build programme going forward for nuclear sites. With these remarks, I hope the noble Lord feels that he has probed successfully. I am afraid that we have taken twice 12 minutes, but it has been a useful debate and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.