Plenary, 05 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 5, 2003

Official Report 441KB pdf

---

Nuclear Submarines (Dumping)

The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-313, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on the proposed dumping of nuclear submarines in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now and I ask those members who are leaving to do so as quickly as possible, using all the available exits.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament rejects any proposal by Her Majesty's Government to dispose of nuclear waste from nuclear submarines in Scotland and opposes, in particular, any plans to cut up and store in Scotland any of the redundant nuclear submarines currently held at Rosyth or those that will become redundant in future.

As a result of the powers that the Scottish Executive has through the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the planning powers that are available to local authorities, the issues that we are debating this evening are not wholly reserved. In any case, the people of Scotland rightly expect that their Parliament will express a view on issues of importance to Scotland, whether or not they are reserved.

There are approximately 360 nuclear-powered submarines in the world today. Russia has 48, the United States of America has 72 and there are numerous other countries with such submarines. Many of those countries are struggling to get to grips with how to dispose of them. I am concerned that whatever site deals with the United Kingdom's redundant submarines, it has the potential to become a world dump for that type of work.

The UK has 27 submarines. Approval was given in 2001 for three submarines to be built and three more are planned, subject to ministerial approval. Under current known plans, therefore, the UK will have 33 submarines. Seven are currently afloat at Rosyth and four at Devonport. Afloat storage uses the structure of the submarine and its reactor compartment to contain the radioactive waste and to shield radiation.

Prior to 1998, the Ministry of Defence's policy was to maintain its submarines and store them afloat for up to 30 years, with the capacity to go well beyond that if required. Incredibly, however, the MOD failed to recognise that by 2012 there would be no space left to store submarines afloat. In addition, there is continuing uncertainty because the establishment of a national waste repository is no closer. The best estimate is that it will be created in 2040.

Those factors, together with criticism from the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee that the MOD had no policy, led in 1998 to ministerial approval for finding an alternative to the afloat storage strategy. Thus was born project ISOLUS—interim storage of laid-up submarines. It beggars belief that the UK commissioned its first nuclear-powered submarine in 1960, but it took another 38 years for the authorities to start looking for a method to dispose of them.

When those submarines, which weigh about 8,000 tonnes, are no longer useful their highly radioactive fuel is removed and transported to Sellafield. The highly radioactive reactor compartment is left behind. That compartment is approximately the size of two double-decker buses, has a diameter of 10m and weighs about 750 tonnes. The MOD proposes to award a contract for storage of the reactor compartments for a period of 30 years. Of the four bids that have been tabled, three have direct implications for Scotland—for Rosyth in particular—and potential implications for Coulport and Dounreay. Frankly, the fourth bid is so vague that it is impossible to ascertain whether it would have any implications for Scotland.

It is clear that cut up and storage in Scotland is highly likely as a result of the ISOLUS project. That fear is given even greater significance as a result of the findings of the consultation process, which state in relation to storage in Scotland:

"some stakeholders at some point suggested Scotland as containing the best sites, in line with the argument that wastes should be stored remotely. For many, Scotland appears as containing large unpopulated areas which would be the most remote in Britain."

Those are the very same arguments that saw the creation of Dounreay, the siting of Trident on the Clyde and the hunt by Nirex for a nuclear waste disposal site in Scotland during the 1970s.

On the point of remoteness, one of the flaws in some of the proposals before us is that the decommissioning will take place on a separate site to storage and there is a huge risk attached to transporting waste through what is, to all intents and purposes, urban Scotland. Does the member agree that minimising any potential risk is the name of the game?

That is important. I will come to that point when I talk about Devonport later.

Those arguments are the same as those that were used to make Scotland the graveyard of a lot of nuclear waste. They are obviously going to be the same arguments that are used for those submarines to come here unless the Parliament and the Scottish Executive state loudly and clearly that they say no to Scotland's being used as a nuclear dump.

Where should those nuclear-powered submarines find their final resting place? I now come to address Jackie Baillie's point.

In June 1993, Malcolm Rifkind, the then Tory Secretary of State for Defence, awarded all future work on nuclear sub refitting to Devonport. Additionally, at that time, as part of the dockyard sale agreement, it was clearly stipulated that Rosyth was precluded from having any further submarines berth there until after it had ceased nuclear refitting work in 2000. That dockyard sale agreement was the only obstacle that prevented even more nuclear hulks being stored at Rosyth.

Clearly, there exists compelling evidence—contractual and financial—that the UK Government's first choice for all submarine work is Devonport. To the extent that the dockyard sale agreement protected Devonport from competition from Rosyth, it is clear that Devonport is the Government's choice. If it was good enough in 1993 for Devonport to get all the benefits, why should the Scotland of today be expected to bear all the risks?

I have questions for the minister. First, does he acknowledge the potential conflict in a Government policy that promotes Rosyth as an entry point for tourists from continental Europe, while it is being considered as a graveyard for nuclear-powered submarines?

Secondly, does he support the view that Devonport should deal with the nuclear hulks, and that the seven submarines that are currently at Rosyth should be moved to Devonport for final disposal? There are no safety concerns with that proposal. Because of the withdrawal of the Nigg option today, Devonport Management Ltd has accepted that it can move the submarines from Rosyth to Devonport safely. That is where those submarines should go. I hope that the minister shares that view.

Thirdly, will the minister consider using all the powers that are available to him through SEPA? SEPA has extensive powers in this area because it can be involved in the planning process. The disposal facility will need a waste management licence under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the management and disposal of any radioactive waste that arises will require separate authorisation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. Will the minister consider using the powers that are available to him through SEPA, and the planning powers of councils, to block any sites in Scotland from being associated with work on those submarines?

Scotland expects the minister to do what is right. Devonport got the jobs. Scotland cannot be expected to take the deadly nuclear inheritance for the next 100,000 years.

I have a long list of members who wish to speak in the debate. The minister has indicated his ability to remain for an extended debate. I will work out later by how much we might need to extend the debate, but I ask members who speak now to observe the four-minute limit quite strictly.

In bringing this motion to the Parliament, Bruce Crawford issued a press release a couple of weeks ago that criticised me and other members for not signing the motion, by which he implied that I support the proposal to cut up submarines and use interim storage at Rosyth. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. If he had worded the motion in a different and more accurate way, perhaps he would have attracted more support for it. Members support the sentiments behind it, but we have to sign what is on paper, and what is on paper is not what Bruce Crawford is actually saying.

The fact is that the wording of the motion is simply false. That is why I refused to sign it and, I assume, why others did the same. It is simply not true that there is a

"proposal by Her Majesty's Government to dispose of nuclear waste from nuclear submarines in Scotland".

On 11 September, the Ministry of Defence announced that it is to consult publicly on proposals that it has received from the industry for the decommissioning of the redundant submarines. That is the current situation, and we should be clear about that.

Will the member give way?

No—just wait.

Bruce Crawford highlighted the fact that seven nuclear submarines are stored afloat at Rosyth. My colleague Rachel Squire, the member of Parliament for Dunfermline West, has been assiduous—as one would expect—in trying to find a solution to the issue of nuclear subs at Rosyth. She worked assiduously before and, in particular, has worked assiduously since, Rosyth dockyard came within the boundaries of the Dunfermline West constituency.

On 1 September I was interviewed on "Good Morning Scotland"—I did a number of interviews—about the subject, before Bruce Crawford lodged his motion, because I knew that we were about to go to public consultation. Like him, I was concerned that that might be the thin end of the wedge, and that other nuclear submarines in the UK fleet and—more important—in other international fleets might be attracted to Rosyth if the option that was proposed by Babcock Engineering Services Ltd at Rosyth went ahead. I raised the fact that we were to go to consultation at the time and if that had been contained in the motion—rather than the sentiment that the motion contains—I would have supported it.

The issue before us is difficult. Bruce Crawford rightly said that we need to go back to the situation in 1998. However, it is even more damning that originally, when the nuclear submarines were first commissioned, it was intended to dispose of them simply by filling them with concrete and dumping them in a trench in the Atlantic ocean. That proposal is even more unacceptable. As Bruce Crawford highlighted, it shows some of the lack of forethought about what we would do with those nuclear submarines when they came to the end of their life. The difficulty that we are now faced with is that, although we were not the generation that commissioned the submarines, we are the generation that has inherited the problem of what to do with them.

I agree that the issue is difficult. I cannot imagine that any community would readily welcome nuclear waste. That said, it would appear that some parts of the UK live more easily with the notion than others. Some members in the chamber represent constituencies where there are nuclear power stations and where local people appear to be able to accept those power stations more readily than other communities, were nuclear power stations to be proposed for their areas.

The main fact that we must bear in mind is that we are at the beginning of a three-year public consultation process. People are right to participate in that process, and I encourage people to do so. On Friday evening, Rachel Squire held a meeting in Rosyth at which a councillor from the same party as Bruce Crawford made her views very clear about where she stood on the issue. Rather than indulge in gesture politics, we should encourage people to make their views clear. We should not be alarmist by suggesting that something is definitely going to happen when we are in the process of a public consultation.

First, I pay tribute to Bruce Crawford for raising the subject in the Parliament. As he clearly outlined in his speech, although responsibility for the issue lies at Westminster, decisions will be taken in Scotland that will have a crucial impact on the final decision.

Two of the original five proposals would have affected my constituency of Argyll and Bute. The first, which was probably of greatest concern to the majority of constituents in the south of the constituency, was the proposal by Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd to cut up nuclear submarines and store the nuclear reactors on the site of the former oil fabrication yard at Ardyne point.

Scott Barrie made the fair point that we are only at the consultation stage and that we have three years in which to make our views known and to try to head off some of the proposals. If the McAlpine proposal had gone ahead, it would have had a devastating impact on the environment surrounding Ardyne. It would also have had a fundamental impact on the tourism prospects of an area that has striven over the past number of years to turn around its image as the good old doon-the-watter place to go. Because of its lovely scenery and so forth, the area—including the resorts of Rothesay and Dunoon—is now seen as an upmarket and much more attractive place to travel to. Real worries were expressed about the impact of the McAlpine proposal, including the impact on the agenda of turning around people's perception of the area. The local community was genuinely up in arms against the proposal. Thankfully, the company realised how untenable its proposal was and has now withdrawn it. I want to put on public record my thanks to the company for taking that decision. It was a sensible decision that recognised the real hostility that there was locally to the proposal.

Argyll and Bute is still left with the Babcock proposal to store intermediate-level waste at Coulport. Although Coulport is not in my constituency, many of my constituents in the Cowal area live just across the water from Coulport. There are real concerns about the storage of nuclear waste on that site.

As I said, the local community opposes the proposal on the same grounds as the original proposal for Ardyne point was opposed—for economic reasons, because of the environmental impact on the area and because it would create the perception that we have a nuclear dump on our doorstep. Of course, Coulport is on the edge of Scotland's first national park—it is straight across the water from the park. It would be contradictory to introduce materials that have such a reputation with the public on the doorstep of Scotland's first national park. That would be an illogical decision.

I have outlined the local community's concern, which was my main reason for speaking, but I draw the minister's attention to the process. Lancaster University undertook the initial focus group work in Oban, which is 90 miles away from the two proposed sites. Someone, somewhere went far wrong if they thought that that represented sounding out local opinion. That exercise was similar to sounding out local opinion in Edinburgh about Coulport and Ardyne, so something went wildly wrong.

Will the minister clarify whether the Babcock proposals for Coulport are exempt from the planning process? If so, how do objectors feed their views into the final decision-making process? I accept that consultations are being undertaken but, eventually, the Crown will take decisions, if Crown immunity applies.

Does the Coulport site require Scottish Environment Protection Agency discharge consents? If so, does Crown immunity affect that? My last comment relates to the concern that Jackie Baillie expressed about transporting waste through urban Scotland from the east to the west, which is a big issue.

On Monday, I visited Glenrothes College in central Fife, which has 1,300 full-time students and more than 8,000 part-time students. The principal emphasised the extent of the brain drain of young people from Fife. The college in Kirkcaldy and Lauder College in Dunfermline face similar problems as qualified engineers and highly skilled graduates vote with their feet and turn their backs on Fife.

The dilemma that the kingdom's excellent colleges face in the current economic slump is about what they should train their students to do in any future economic upturn. Before anybody leaps to their feet to ask whether I suggest that unemployed young Fifers should be trained to remove nuclear reactors from submarines, I will give the short answer that I do not know what they should be trained to do, but somebody, somewhere must eventually process nuclear waste.

Is the member aware that trade unions at Rosyth estimate that if the work under discussion went there, the net import of jobs would be only 50? That would hardly resolve the region's unemployment problem.

I would not suggest for a minute that the area's unemployment problem would be solved, but that is not the figure that I received from Babcock only yesterday, which talked about between 150 and 200 highly skilled engineering jobs.

The grim alternative to somebody dealing with nuclear waste is shown by the swelling armada of rusting, leaking nuclear submarines in the ports of the Kola peninsula in north-west Russia. The mothballed subs in the Kola peninsula represent the greatest latent potential on the planet for a catastrophic release of radioactivity. Russia simply does not have adequate technical provision for the long-term storage of nuclear waste. At least we in the United Kingdom are discussing the eventual siting of a long-term storage facility, which, I add immediately, is not intended for Rosyth.

As we have heard, seven nuclear submarines are floating at Rosyth. Their fuel has been removed and taken to Sellafield, but the compartments that contain the reactors have not been touched. The MOD tells us that they are in a safe situation. In partnership with Motherwell Bridge Ltd, Babcock plans to strip out the reactors, break them down—that depends on the radioactive waste that is emitted—and eventually store the radioactive material temporarily, possibly at Coulport or Sellafield. I am informed that there is no intention of storing the material at Rosyth, even in the short term.

Whether that material is stored at Rosyth or Coulport, does the member accept that the short-term period that Babcock talks about relates to 2040 at the earliest?

That may be the case, but the information that I have is that the material will be removed as soon as possible.

Babcock could deactivate all 27 submarines at Rosyth. Alternatively, the material could be removed elsewhere and transported to Rosyth, although I know that there are difficulties with that. However, the real problem is that Fife's industrial base is nowhere near strong enough for us to be likely to abandon any prospective source of jobs.

Will the member give way?

No. I have no time left.

It is understandable that people go into instinctive denial whenever the dreaded words "nuclear waste" are mentioned, but it is not enough simply to adopt the nimby attitude that it is up to somebody else to solve the problem of decaying time bombs that mothballed nuclear submarines represent. No nukes may be good news, but it will not make them go away.

Obviously, full consultation is essential. I gather that such consultation will take place in Dunfermline on 2 December. I do not know whether Babcock's disposal strategy is the right one—we will hear more about that—

You must close now.

I am winding up now.

However, I am not sure that we should throw up our hands in horror and declare that, as far as processing waste is concerned, Fife and Scotland should be nuke-free zones. I am not sure that that is morally, legally or—ultimately—economically sustainable.

We must recognise that the cross-party opposition to the proposals to decommission nuclear submarines in Scotland is already bearing fruit both at Ardyne point and Nigg. It is good news that those places have been removed from the list of potential sites, but as has been mentioned already tonight, there are also proposals for other Scottish sites, including Coulport, Rosyth and Dounreay. Those proposals are equally unacceptable and must be rejected and opposed by all possible means.

Surely it is now time to challenge the hard-wired tendency of the MOD and UK Government automatically to locate the dirty and dangerous projects and the damaging and experimental work in Scotland while locating most of the lucrative long-term projects in the south. Surely the decommissioning would be more appropriate for yards such as Devonport, which is working on the current generation of submarines and has the full array of technology and safety factors to undertake such work.

We must look to the future. It is important that the Parliament put down a marker for the companies that have declared an interest in carrying out such work in Scotland, so that they pay the closest attention to the opinion of the Parliament. That opinion is hard-wired and closely connected to the strong feelings of the communities in which it is proposed that the decommissioning should take place. Although the prospect of extra jobs from long-term salvage contracts is superficially attractive, the prospect of dealing with nuclear material is much less so. We should therefore put down a marker so that the prospect of dealing with the Parliament and the local communities that it represents is seen as deeply unattractive by any firm that seeks to locate decommissioning work in Scotland.

We are already building an impressive track record. As I mentioned at the start, the people of Cowal and Bute have reacted strongly against the proposed use of Ardyne point. Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd has already withdrawn its declared interest in the site. Equally, the people of the Cromarty firth have reacted strongly against the proposed use of Nigg and the DML consortium has withdrawn its declared interest in that site.

In addition, it has been pointed out that we do not yet have an official national strategy for the long-term storage of nuclear waste material. I suggest that any location that volunteers to take on the handling and storing of submarine-derived nuclear waste might discover that it sent the wrong signal to a grateful MOD and nuclear power-generating industry.

The process for selecting the site for a national nuclear waste repository is on-going and a list of possible sites is due to be published early in 2004. The suggestion is that the final decision will be taken by 2007. The waste has been accumulating at various places around the UK in above-ground storage facilities for many years while an acceptable final solution for storage has been investigated. The various sites around Scotland feature prominently, so it is possible that we could see ourselves being self-selected for that. We are critically aware of that.

We also need to put down a marker about the issue because the proposals could damage our potential in other areas, such as decommissioning oil rigs or involvement in the growing demand for construction of renewable energy projects. Most important, the proposals would undermine the pristine quality of our overall environment in Scotland. They would undermine our reputation as a nation that has a quality natural environment and an assiduous approach to keeping it that way. Our environment is key—along with renewables, broadband and the safety and security that we enjoy—in attracting long-term investment to help our economy to recover.

We must therefore continue to make Scotland synonymous with a pristine environment for the sake of new jobs in the new economy, for tourism, for our food industry and especially for our fishing and aquaculture industries, which would be even more vulnerable if we were to accept the proposed decommissioning here in Scotland. That is why we must support the motion.

I welcome the debate and congratulate Bruce Crawford on instigating it, although I am sorry that he has tried to turn it into one of those poor-old-Scotland debates, because I do not think that that is relevant. This is a UK issue and it is to do with finding a proper solution to the storage of nuclear waste.

As someone who lives in the Cromarty firth area I was, of course, greatly relieved when I read in the press this morning that Nigg was no longer being considered as a site for dismantling the Rosyth-based submarines. The proposal came out of the blue and it raised fears of an environmental blight on the Moray firth that could affect tourism and agriculture. It was also feared that the Cromarty firth would miss out on potential engineering contracts for the oil and renewables industries if this contract was accepted.

We are famous in the Moray firth for building rigs, jackets and platforms for the oil industry. We want to become famous for building the new generation of wind turbines and for the engineering associated with wave and tidal power. A strong perception was that the owners of the Nigg yard, which has the largest dry dock in Europe, were bypassing the chance to bid for energy-related work because they had their eye on the submarine contract. Now that DML has withdrawn from the tendering process, I hope to see it make strenuous efforts to secure other engineering work for the area.

There was virtually unanimous opposition to the proposal in the Cromarty firth area. I pay tribute to the strong line that Highland Council took on the matter. Jamie Stone and I met the Ross and Cromarty area committee two days ago. We pledged our support in opposing the nuclear submarine decommissioning and in promoting the Cromarty firth's potential for renewables engineering. From our discussions with the council, we are aware of its worries about the Vulcan naval reactor test site at Dounreay being used as some sort of national repository.

My relief at the escape of one part of the Highlands and Islands is tempered by the threat still posed to the Clyde and the concern about where the waste from the decommissioned submarines will be stored. I fear that wherever that waste is stored will become the de facto national repository. Other members have made that point. Some of the signals seem to be that Coulport or the Vulcan site at Dounreay are possible sites. If members examine the details of the bids, they will see that DML proposes storage at the national repository, as does McAlpine. Of course, there is as yet no national repository and I do not believe that there should be one. Nuclear waste should be stored where it is produced. I do not want nuclear waste to be trucked around the country.

When Nirex brought its proposals for a national repository to the Highlands about 10 years ago—it was talking about a hole as big as the Channel tunnel being dug in the north Highlands—we were totally opposed to it. I pay tribute to the late Elspeth Reid, a geologist and a very close friend of mine, who in her book "Rock Solid" demolished Nirex's case for an underground storage facility in the Highlands. We do not want to have to fight that battle all over again. I do not want to see nuclear waste from submarines being used as the thin end of the wedge to create a national repository for nuclear waste in the Highlands or elsewhere. That is the most concerning aspect of the proposals and I hope that the Executive will have something to say on the issue.

I congratulate Bruce Crawford on bringing this vital issue to the Parliament tonight.

Decommissioning of nuclear submarines is a problem, however and wherever we do it. It is a problem not only for us, but for our children and for our children's children.

We must state now in this Parliament that we do not want any more nuclear submarines. They are a monstrous part of last century's history. In a globalised world and in a political context in which a craft knife can have more political power than a nuclear submarine, there is no place for nuclear submarines in our modern navies.

I am aware of much of the bitter history that surrounds Rosyth and the failed promises of construction jobs, but I am concerned that the current consultation is a sham. Once again the carrot of jobs is being dangled in west Fife but, this time, the carrot is rotten and unpalatable, as all the options relate to cutting up submarines' sealed reactor compartments. The options are flawed because cutting up such compartments will expose workers who work on the decommissioning to radiation and will release radiation into the environment at a time when, under the OSPAR convention, we are trying to reduce radioactive emissions to zero by 2020. They also compromise future options that might be available for proper disposal of radioactive waste in sealed reactor compartments in, say, 60 years' time.

Cutting up is an unacceptable option. The option is unacceptable for the United States Government, which is not pursuing it. Cutting up creates most profits for companies that are involved in it, but there are unacceptable risks to the environment and human health. I call on the Executive to rule out issuing consents for any options that are currently on the table that involve cutting up reactor compartments. We need a new consultation that is based only on options that minimise risks to the environment and to human health.

What should those options involve? First, we should minimise the movement of the submarines in question, as we have already seen a redundant Russian submarine sink while it was being moved from one yard to another. That means that submarines should not be towed out of Rosyth and that no more submarines should be towed in from Russia—Ted Brocklebank seemed to suggest that they should be—or from Devonport.

The second principle is that there should not be cutting up. We should consider only cutting out sealed reactor compartments for land-based storage. That would allow us time to assess longer-term storage and disposal options for nuclear submarines.

I say to Bruce Crawford that such principles are backed by Greenpeace and John Large, who, as many members will know, was the nuclear submarine expert who was decorated by the Russians for raising the Kursk submarine. We cannot afford to get things wrong. The issue is not about maximising economic opportunities; it is about disposing and storing dangerous and redundant equipment that can harm our environment. We must reject the options that are currently on the table and consider only safe and responsible options.

I, too, congratulate Bruce Crawford on bringing the debate to the chamber.

I was mightily relieved—as I am sure many others were, including Maureen Macmillan and John Farquhar Munro—when the announcement came from Nigg about the voluntary withdrawal from discussions. That announcement is a huge relief to all my constituents. As Maureen Macmillan and other members have said, Highland Council was hugely concerned about the matter and it pressed its case strongly to both of us last Monday.

I want to share with members several things that the Rev Ronnie Johnstone recently said in an address to Wick and Thurso trades council. The Rev Ronnie Johnstone is a minister at Thurso West church and he made some thoughtful remarks. I would never describe him as being anti-nuke, but he said that, in the public's perception, the transportation of large amounts of radioactive parts throughout the country would be a big problem and that people would be worried about the risks. Bruce Crawford mentioned an issue that the Rev Ronnie Johnstone also dealt with. He said that we are still considering what will happen at a United Kingdom level with civil waste and that we still do not know where we are with a UK repository, which means that proposals to store in places such as Dounreay in my constituency would be nothing if not premature, to say the least. He outlined in measured and thoughtful terms the fact that, if we are not careful, we will unwittingly end up with the final repository at Dounreay—Maureen Macmillan echoed that argument. I admire Ronnie Johnstone for putting forward his thoughts.

I believe that, in future, Dounreay should become a world centre of excellence for decommissioning. We should be—and are—linking up the North Highland College and the UHI Millennium Institute with that, to train young people and to send them out to other parts of the world. Why should we not steal a lead in that?

I can assure members that the economy of that part of Caithness is assured for some years to come, in relation to the spending that is going into the area through decommissioning. It would be easy to scaremonger on the matter, but when I hear as level-headed a man as Ronnie Johnstone voice his considered thoughts to the Wick and Thurso trades council, I say to all members that they should listen carefully.

Of course, defence and atomic energy are reserved matters. However, let us remind ourselves that, on the planning and the environment front, they are certainly matters for this Parliament.

Before I call Mr Gibson, I require to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by 20 minutes.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that under Rule 8.14.3 Members' Business on 5 November 2003 be extended until 6.15 pm.—[Mr Jamie Stone.]

Motion agreed to.

The Parliament must have a policy on the extremely serious problems of the potential increase in the nuclear waste that is held in Scotland and the extension of the number of sites on which nuclear waste is held. Those matters might not ultimately be our responsibility, but there must be a Scottish policy and this Parliament is the place where that should be stated. That is particularly the case because we have had plenty of experience of the kind of flawed consultations that took place in the past—over Nirex, for example—and of the many arguments that local people had to prepare in order to counter various proposals. Once again, however, we are in the midst of a flawed consultation. In its statement about the abandonment of the Nigg site, Highland Council points out that the hearings process was

"flawed because standard Cabinet Office guidelines on public consultation had been ignored as there was no consultation document to refer to."

Frankly, the way in which nuclear issues are handled is a scandal. Ten years ago, when the discussion about a national repository was put off, it was clear that the most favourable geology for a repository was in fact in the Thames estuary, in the area around London, where there are extremely stable shale beds. However, that fact was removed from the debate.

We must recognise that the issue of the storage of nuclear submarines is connected with the issue of the long-term storage of other forms of nuclear waste. A nuclear waste management authority is being set up in Britain to deal with that, so we must ask that, in the consultation, the question of the submarines is not taken in isolation but is linked with those other matters.

I thank Bruce Crawford for raising the issue about the seven submarines at Rosyth. We must not import nuclear waste to Scotland—including parts of Scotland where there is no such waste at present. We must export the technology that allows the waste to be dealt with wherever it is in the world. It is essential that we use our experience to do so and to help our economy. Our people can help to train others to deal with the mess that has been created by the development of nuclear weapons.

My second point is that the MOD relies heavily on private industry to deal with these problems. It took huge amounts of taxpayers' money to set the industry up and taxpayers ought to have confidence that the public bodies that have responsibility for systems to deal with the waste will not let contracts on the basis of who can make a lot of profit from the business. If one makes profit, one cuts corners. We know from worldwide issues that we must avoid that approach. Ultimately, our interest lies in the country's safety.

The Highlands have a clean image and we should ensure that we do not spread the existing waste around—that is a level-headed approach. We must ensure that the MOD is brought to account by people in this country saying, in the strongest possible terms, that we think that the interim storage of laid-up submarines project—ISOLUS—is flawed, that it must be altered and that the terms of the project must be brought out into the open.

The Government is responsible for our environment and planning conditions and it must take a strong view on the matter. I therefore look forward to hearing what the minister has to say. The country looks to the Scottish Parliament to take the strongest possible view that we should stop nuclear dumping in Scotland.

I do not think that any member would argue that the situation in which we find ourselves is not a complete and utter mess. This is only half a debate. If we are to deal with the end product of decommissioning and nuclear waste, we should also be dealing with the other end of the process and what is causing the nuclear waste. Mark Ruskell is the only member who has mentioned the issue of nuclear submarines. We have an accumulating problem. I do not know whether I am going to be around in 2040—I do not think that many members will still be alive in 2040, including the younger members.

That is agist.

We will see who lasts the longest. We will get nae pension, anyway.

We should also be talking about not accumulating the problem. The first thing that we should do is stop commissioning new nuclear submarines. We should not put another three in the pipeline. One of the campaigns that I would like other MSPs to get involved with, outside Faslane, is the campaign to remove nuclear submarines completely from the Clyde.

In an intervention on Bruce Crawford, Jackie Baillie—who is no longer in the chamber—made a point about moving the submarines from Rosyth to Devonport. She asked whether he was worried about transporting nuclear waste through urban areas. I would laugh if the issue was not so serious. She is not in favour of doing that, but we have powers over our roads and nobody on the Labour benches objects to nuclear weapons' being transported by rail and road though urban areas. That is an issue that the Scottish Socialist Party has raised time and again. If that means of transportation is not safe for waste, it is not safe for weapons either. That is an issue that we would like to take up in our campaign.

None of the options is safe. If they were safe, our communities would not be saying, "No on my doorstep," where they might be affected by cancer and radioactivity. None of the options that the private companies are putting forward is safe. I do not agree with Bruce Crawford and I do not like the terms in which the debate has been framed, as a matter of Scotland versus Devonport. No matter where the waste is taken, it will affect people's lives; it will affect their communities and their health, no matter where they live in Britain, Europe or the world. It would be a huge mistake to tow the submarines when they could break up, despite the fact that they are leaking into the water at Rosyth.

Does Fiona Hyslop think that we should tow them through the water to Devonport while they are leaking?

Is Frances Curran happy with the fact that these subs are leaking into the—

No, I am not.

She just said that, despite the fact—

Exactly. We have to accept one of the proposals that Mark Ruskell has spoken about, but none of them is safe. Cutting the submarines into little bits is not safe. Pulling them out and putting them into graves in the land is not safe. The Labour and Tory Governments have been prepared to spend billions on the technology to create the submarines in the first place. What we need urgently is an independent, science-based group—cost should not be a problem and there should be no private contractors—to find the most up-to-date technology and the safest way in which to dispose of the submarines. If the Executive really wants to deal with the problem by having a three-year consultation, that should be carried out immediately. Otherwise, the Executive will have to accept decommissioning on the spot.

I would like the minister to go to Westminster to make these points and to argue the case. He should not just accept that we will have to live with this problem for generations. The Executive should put its money where its mouth is.

Members will be aware that one of the chosen sites for the submarine decommissioning was on the border of my constituency of Ross, Skye and Inverness West. However, I was pleased to hear this week that KBR Caledonia Ltd—note how a user-friendly name was picked—and its parent companies have decided to back away from the idea of using Nigg as a place to decommission nuclear submarines. That is good news.

Although Nigg is not in my constituency, the yard there lies less than half a mile across the water from Cromarty, which is in my constituency. From the moment that the decision was taken to consider Nigg as a possible site, I received a fair amount of mail from constituents in the Black Isle and further afield who were concerned and alarmed by the proposals. It is probably fortunate for the company that it withdrew, because if it had taken one look at the reaction of Black Isle residents in the Munlochy genetically modified crops debacle, it would have realised that the reaction to nuclear submarine decommissioning would have been 10 times more vigorous.

We have already had a campaign against nuclear dumping in the Highlands, which was a result of the suggestion by Nirex. At that time, the Government considered sending the UK's radioactive waste north to be stored in every nook and cranny that could be found. The united Highland campaign of the time sent the Government away, as the song says, to think again. For the benefit of generations to come, we must be vigilant and remain united on this important issue.

A big issue has been made of the possible creation of jobs. My area might have been fortunate and got a few jobs in the initial stages of decommissioning, but the end result would have caused extreme damage to our local economy. For instance, I doubt whether cruise liners would have visited the Cromarty firth, as they do at present, because they would have had to sail within 200m of decommissioned submarines. The proposal might also have affected the perception of agricultural produce from Ross-shire, to say nothing about the effect on the many thousands of tourists who regularly visit the Highlands and Islands.

The argument about jobs can be applied to the rest of Scotland, but it would be better to forgo the few jobs that would be gained through nuclear decommissioning and to ensure that nuclear waste, in any form, is retained where it is produced, using processes similar to those that are currently undertaken at Dounreay. All radioactive waste should be stored on site, carefully monitored and kept in dry storage conditions. I am glad that my party, the Liberal Democrats, at its recent conference backed that view unanimously. I am sure that that view is held by most people in the country.

As everyone knows, the Highlands of Scotland are promoted and accepted as a clean and pristine environment. That environment benefits residents and visitors alike. Let us keep that proud distinction—we have no wish to become the nuclear dump of the western world.

I congratulate my colleague Bruce Crawford on securing the debate—it is important that the Parliament has a voice on the matter. I invite Scott Barrie to work with Bruce Crawford on any future motions on the subject so that all members can sign them. I do not think that members are a million miles away from one another on this important issue.

As Scott Barrie and George Lyon said, we are at the beginning of a three-year consultation period. However, the problem is that, of the four bids that are on the table, three mention Rosyth and the other one is vague and will almost certainly include Rosyth. We are dealing with a consultation process that already has the end decision in place. That is why we have to be vigilant and why MSPs and the Scottish Executive should make representations to the MOD at the beginning of the consultation period; we must not wait until the end.

One of the reasons why Bruce Crawford used the terms that he did in the motion was recent answers that he had received from Ross Finnie. On 18 September, Bruce Crawford asked the Scottish Executive

"what representations it has made to Her Majesty's Government regarding the consultation process on the interim storage of laid-up submarines."

Ross Finnie replied:

"Subsequent to the Ministry of Defence's announcement on 11 September, the Executive has been in contact with the UK Government on this matter, and will be actively involved in this consultation process in relation to devolved responsibilities."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 18 September 2003; p 664.]

On 9 October, Bruce Crawford asked the Scottish Executive

"what representations it has made to Her Majesty's Government about the decommissioning and storage of nuclear submarines in Scotland."

This time, Ross Finnie replied:

"The Executive has made no such representations to the Ministry of Defence."—[Official Report, 9 October 2003; c 2562.]

The problem is that the Executive does not seem to be clear about its position. When the minister sums up, I hope that he will say to us that, if representations have not already been made to the MOD, representations will be made soon and that we will not wait until the end of the consultation process to make our views known. Most of us in the chamber know exactly what will happen at the end of the consultation process: Rosyth will be put forward as the choice of the MOD. We must resist that now.

The Scottish Executive must make it clear to the MOD that it will use all the powers that are available to it under the devolved settlement to ensure that no planning permission is given and that SEPA receives direction in relation to the radioactive waste.

In closing, I will address some comments to Ted Brocklebank, who seemed to suggest that 50 or 150 jobs might be created if the work were to go to Rosyth. I ask him to consider how many thousands of jobs were lost to the Fife economy when the Tories took the work from Rosyth and gave it to Devonport. He should not sit there talking about the carrot of perhaps 150 jobs when a Government of the party of which he is a member was responsible for jobs being lost in the first place.

I congratulate Bruce Crawford on securing this debate. He has given us the opportunity to debate an important matter and I welcome the opportunity to clarify some of the issues that have been raised—in particular the one relating to the suggestion that there was any leakage from the submarines. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our environmental regulator regularly monitors radioactivity in the environment and the results of that monitoring are published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Food Standards Agency for anyone to see. We should dispel that myth at the outset.

We need to be clear about the proposals. Scott Barrie accurately distinguished between them in his speech. At this stage, the proposals are not MOD proposals, which some people have suggested they are. They are proposals that have been requested from industry sources to inform MOD decisions about managing radioactive waste from decommissioned nuclear submarines. As has been said, nothing is definite as yet, as is demonstrated by the fact that there have been two changes in the comparatively recent past. Since the process began, one company has withdrawn its proposal and, as Bruce Crawford and others mentioned, a further change was announced today. Following discussions between Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd and its part-owner, Kellog, Brown & Root Ltd, DRDL has withdrawn its proposal to use the KBR facility at Nigg, to which John Farquhar Munro referred.

The final decision on what to do with waste from the decommissioning of the UK's nuclear submarines is, quite properly, reserved to the UK Government. Nevertheless, as part of the project for the interim storage of laid-up submarines, the Ministry of Defence has commissioned Lancaster University to carry out a wide-ranging public consultation on those proposals. In the context of Rosyth, a focus group was held, I think, only this week.

I acknowledge the level of public interest in the future of redundant submarines. In effect, that is what the debate is about, contrary to what the Green and Scottish Socialist Party members said. I welcome—I presume that all members join me—the public consultation that is under way on the project. Recent research commissioned by the Executive clearly shows that, where matters of radioactive waste management are concerned, local and national stakeholders expect to be involved in the decision-making process and any decision on locating sites for decommissioning redundant nuclear submarines needs to be made after consultation with local people.

The consultation exercise is about raising awareness, engaging with local communities and giving them the opportunity to air their views. That is not an exclusive process; it is—or should be—an inclusive process. It is about public engagement in a matter that I know to be emotive and one on which people properly hold strong views. I therefore support the public consultation process and believe that the consultation's conclusion should—and, I guarantee to members, will—shape future decision making.

Will the minister tell us what weighting the Scottish Executive might give to the public stance of, for instance, Highland Council on such issues?

In the event that all the ifs became reality and a project that lay within the Highland Council area came to fruition, I would expect that the planning process would involve widespread local consultation. However, I will—with your permission, Presiding Officer—come on to the environmental and planning considerations in due course.

The consultation is in any event, as Jamie Stone knows, being run independently of the Executive by Lancaster University; that is properly the case because that properly distances the Executive and the Government from any charge of influencing the process. Meetings are being organised in conjunction with the relevant local authorities—Highland Council will obviously be one of those—and I encourage all interested parties to participate.

We have been asked what representations the Executive has made to the Ministry of Defence about the proposals that industry has made—I think that that was the question that Tricia Marwick asked. As I have made clear, any decision on the preferred option is reserved to the UK Government at Westminster. Nevertheless, we are taking a close interest in the matter, including the consultation process which I have described, and we have engaged with the MOD on the procedural aspects of the consultation to ensure best that the sensitive matters to which members referred are raised at national as well as local levels.

In partnership with the UK Government and the other devolved Administrations, the Executive has started to review the long-term management of high-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste.

Is the minister as concerned as I am that, of the four bids that the Ministry of Defence will consider, three have direct implications for Rosyth and the fourth is so vague that it will almost certainly include Rosyth? At the end of the process, at least one of the bids will have an implication for Scotland. Bearing that in mind, will the minister be a bit more specific about the representations that he is making to the Ministry of Defence?

Yes and no. There have been representations at the highest level between the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence on the consultation process because that is where we are, and that is as it should be. At this stage it would not be appropriate to make representations on specific proposals, given that they are in a constant state of flux.

We are jointly setting up the committee on radioactive waste management. Mr Finnie will shortly announce the membership of the committee, which will make recommendations to ministers about management of radioactive waste, including its final disposal. It is important to bear it in mind—as Scott Barrie did—that the ISOLUS project is not about final disposal, but about agreeing long-term storage options that will allow submarine reactor waste to be stored safely until final disposal options have been decided by the Government and the devolved Administrations, through the committee on radioactive waste management process that I have described.

If a site in Scotland is identified as warranting further consideration—as Tricia Marwick suggests may happen—the developer will need to take into account planning and environmental considerations. George Lyon asked about that before he left the chamber. In the first instance, planning permission will be a matter for the planning authority in the area in which the proposal is made—in the case that was mentioned by Jamie Stone, that would be the Highland Council. Planning applications are subject to publicity and consultation requirements. Interested parties would have an opportunity to comment on the proposals before the planning authority made a decision on them. If planning permission were refused, applicants would have a right of appeal to Scottish ministers. Parties who commented on the application during the planning process would have the opportunity to become involved in the appeal process.

As the minister knows, at the moment there is no third-party right of appeal. Any appeal would involve only the applicant and the local authority. The community voice would never be heard.

That is not true. As I explained, throughout the process the planning authority would have the opportunity to hear from the local community. As with any other proposal, the planning authority would have to consider whether environmental legislation such as the environmental impact assessment regulations applied. That, too, would allow an opportunity for consultation of local people.

The issue of Crown immunity from planning control was not raised, but the subject will be important in this instance, should the MOD propose to carry out a development itself. Like other Government departments, the MOD has agreed to abide by the administrative arrangements for Crown development, which mirror the requirements of the planning process that I have just outlined.

As I said not long ago in the chamber in answer to a question from Tricia Marwick, the Executive intends to remove Crown immunity from planning control in Scotland. We are utilising the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that is currently before the Westminster Parliament to do that. As planning is a devolved matter, the Scottish Parliament's consent to inclusion of the relevant provisions in the Westminster bill will be required. That consent will be sought in the usual way—through a Sewel motion for consideration by the Scottish Parliament. We intend to lodge such a motion later this month.

As well as being subject to planning considerations, any proposal in Scotland will be subject to environmental regulation by the independent regulator, SEPA, to which I have referred. That will happen in one of two ways—either directly, under the terms of authorisation for disposal of radioactive waste that SEPA grants under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 or, if Crown immunity applies, by letter of agreement requiring similar controls to those that apply under the 1993 act. Both procedures are and will be subject to widespread consultation in the appropriate areas.

Presiding Officer, I thank you for your laxity on the time limits.

I have been able to be lax because Mr Home Robertson withdrew from the debate. However, we are now close to the end of the 20-minute extension.

I conclude with the observation that any decision about which option to pursue is reserved to the UK Government. Any proposal that is made after the widespread consultation to which I have referred will be subject to environmental and planning controls. I reassure members that the Executive has made it clear to the Ministry of Defence that it intends to be kept fully informed of all progress on the project.

Meeting closed at 18:15.