 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 11113, in the name of Delford's Patrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, sitting at a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Court Reform Scotland Bill. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request to speak back now, and I call him Delford's Patrick to move motion number 11113. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question the question is that motion number 11113, in the name of Delford's Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 11117, in the name of Delford's Patrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, sitting at a revision to the business programme for today. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request to speak back now, and I call him Delford's Patrick to move motion number 11117. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 11117, in the name of Delford's Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. We now move to topical questions, question number 1, Annabelle Ewing. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking regarding the future of long-anit parasation. The Scottish Government has regular dialogue with Scottish Power, the UK Government and National Grid about long-anit power station and its contribution to our energy security. Last week, Scottish Power announced that it has not put long-anit forward for the UK Government's capacity market option, one of the potential mechanisms for supporting the continued operation of the plant. I have written to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Davie MP, seeking urgent talks on the future of long-anit and the implications for wider energy security. I have also spoken to Neil Clithero, Scottish Power's CEO of retail and generation, who stands ready to join those talks. Given the off-gem capacity margin warnings for the coming years, Presiding Officer, and given the vital role that long-anit plays, and that there are 260 people employed directly at the plant that will be looking for certainty, I would urge Davie to come to the table as soon as he possibly can. I thank the minister for his answer. I ask if he shares my view that the UK Government's unfair transmission charging regime is now putting those 260 jobs at long-anit at risk, as well as the local supply contracts. I ask the minister to do all in his power to ensure that the UK Government works with the Scottish Government to safeguard the future of long-anit and all those vitally important jobs. I think that we all across the chamber are concerned about the future of workforce throughout Scotland. Those at long-anit will be especially concerned because of the difficulties that are identified by Scottish power. Annabelle Ewing is absolutely correct that in long-anit, the Scottish generator of Scottish power do pay a disproportionate penalty in transmission charges and that that amounts to an additional £41 million a year for every year. As compared with the charges that they would incur, were they generating electricity in, for example, London, where they would be paid, I believe, £4 million to contribute to the grid. Given that that disparity, given that that discrimination affects generators in Scotland, that is a very serious, albeit not a new problem, and one on which I have advised the chamber on several previous occasions. Can I ask the minister further to that reply if he can spell out what the consequences will be if the UK Government now fails to review its policy and base load capacity and fails to reform the discriminatory charging, transmission charging regime that has been in place for far too long? I am concerned to guarantee success and I am concerned to work with the UK Government in a constructive fashion in so far as we can do so. I hope that it is a shared analysis that the continued operation of long-anit is essential to maintenance of security of supply in Scotland. Long-anit provides voltage stability. In the event of a total loss of power, then Crookhan would start out first and then long-anit. Long-anit plays a pivotal role in the security of the grid. That, I believe, is something as a non-engineer that national grid recognise. I am concerned about getting a solution. Of course, in finding that solution, as energy is essentially a reserved matter, the ultimate responsibility does rest very squarely with the UK Government. However, I want to work constructively with it to identify, find and deliver that solution sooner rather than later. I am pleased to hear the minister say that he is going to work constructively with the UK Government. Obviously, in recent years, Scottish Power has invested over £200 million in long-anit, and that sustained hundreds of jobs in Concordant and thousands of additional contractors' jobs in my constituency and beyond. In those discussions with the UK Government, will the minister commit not only to stressing the strategic importance of the site but to recognising the skills and commitment of my constituents, who were responsible for keeping the lights on to more than 2 million homes last year? Those are very fair points that Kara Hilton has made. I will most certainly stress those points to Ed David, just as soon as we can meet together to discuss that. Of course, the jobs are extremely important. The challenges that they face are very substantial, as I found when I had a very lengthy meeting at Longanit some time ago. I learned the very substantial investment of £200 million that has been made in order to render long-anit compatible with EU requirements over emissions and emissions reduction. I think that some credit should be given to Scottish Power for a massive investment to reduce the emissions of, I believe, SOX and NOx, Sulfur, Nitrous Oxide and other chemicals, and therefore they are to be credited for that. However, the fundamental problem that Mr Clithero identified in his press release last week is this. Scottish Generators account for 12 per cent of generation capacity connected to Britain's high-voltage electricity network, but they pay around 35 per cent of the charges. That makes it extremely difficult for them to offer guarantees about the future, and that is the problem that I wish to help to solve over the coming weeks. In addition to the question of the transmission charging regime that the minister has mentioned, there are two other fundamental issues affecting the future viability of Longanit. One is the EU emissions regulations that he has referred to, and the other is the question of carbon pricing proposals. Can the minister tell us what his view is on those two other issues? Well, Mr Fraser is correct that those issues are serious ones, and I discussed them in detail with Scottish Power when I visited Longanit, and they do make the continued operation of Longanit more challenging. However, I do believe that there are options to find a solution. I understand that the national grid spend in the region of, Presiding Officer, and I am waiting confirmation of that in writing, but in the region of £1,000 million a year in order to maintain grid stability, now it is not for me to say what precise amount would be required in order to bring about a solution and longer-term certainty to £220 at least for Longanit, but it would be a very small proportion of that budget, and therefore the opportunity to derive a solution by means of a bespoke contract is one that has existed for some considerable time. It is sad, perhaps, Presiding Officer, to reflect that it is only after Scottish Power puts those matters into the public domain that matters see some real progress coming forward, and it is necessary to go to the press in order to galvanise those who are involved in coming up with solutions to do that. I understand that Scottish Power will be meeting with the national grid next Wednesday, and I will be meeting with Scottish Power directly after that, and I will most certainly be meeting with the national grid, with whom I have already made absolutely clear over a long period of time, in this chamber, in committee and with the national grid. They must find a solution, they should have found it now, and they will have to find it in the next coming weeks, or there will be a more serious debate in this chamber about how Scotland's generators are treated in the United Kingdom. To ask the Scottish Government what role it has in ensuring the safety of nuclear power stations. Presiding Officer, powers over nuclear safety are reserved to the UK Government. The Office for Nuclear Regulation, the ONR, has specific responsibility for regulating safety and security at the nuclear licence sites in Scotland. However, the Scottish Government is responsible for consequence management and engages closely with the UK Government and the ONR to ensure robust resilience plans are in place. Alison Johnstone Thank you. We shouldn't be alarmist about the Hunterston cracks, but it does make the overwhelming case for a full environmental impact assessment and public scrutiny if any decision to extend the lifetime of those plants. The minister and I corresponded in July about the ESPO and our house conventions, both of which make it clear that, even if no new works are required, the public should be involved in decisions. Will the Government support a full environmental impact assessment of any lifetime extension for nuclear power stations in Scotland? First of all, let me confirm that the Office for Nuclear Regulation, to whom I spoke this morning, has confirmed what they have made absolutely clear, and they have provided, as the regulator, an assurance that there are no immediate safety implications affecting Hunterston B and that it is safe to continue generating electricity. Therefore, I think that the safety issue has been dealt with by the regulator. Ms Johnstone refers to whether or not there should be a process of a more wider environmental impact. I can assure Ms Johnstone that the consideration of the environmental case was made when the life was extended to 2023, an extension that was made two years ago and which has been fully discussed and reported in this Parliament already. In addition to that, and in addition to the life extension case, my understanding of the process from my discussions with the ONR this morning and previously is that there is a periodic safety assessment. The next periodic safety assessment will be due to be carried out in 2016 or thereby. I can also assure Ms Johnstone that the defect that has been found is not unexpected. It is something that, on the contrary, was expected and to be expected and known about, both by EDF, the operator and by the ONR. I say that simply because I am sure that we would all agree that no one in this chamber would wish to be unduly alarmist about highly technical matters where the regulator has been very closely involved in working with the company and indeed I spoke to a representative of the company as well this morning on this matter. EDF estimates that the graphic bricks have lost almost 13 per cent of their weight. The current safety limit is 15 per cent, but EDF appears to be able to go to the ONR and ask for this percentage to be raised. They have done exactly that in Kent. What role does the Scottish Government have in such decisions to lower safety thresholds whenever a nuclear power station appears to risk being a breach or whenever the lifetime is extended? We take these matters extremely seriously. It is not simply a matter of what powers we have. All of us are concerned to ensure that safety is properly maintained in all its aspects across the electricity generation world. We have received an assurance that that is the case from the ONR. I was determined myself to obtain that confirmation of that assurance this morning. That is why I spoke to a senior representative of the ONR this morning. I would also state, as I suggested, that both EDF and the ONR have agreed that, with your permission, they will hold a briefing for MSPs after the October recess. Scottish Government officials will be involved with that briefing. They will answer all the questions that Ms Johnson and all other members have. They will be transparent about that. I hope to attend that briefing myself. It will be held during the parliamentary session, but not during the plenary session. With your permission, all members will be able to ask those questions directly of both the company and the regulator involved. I think that the willingness of the company and the regulator to accede to my suggestion this morning does demonstrate their good faith, and I look forward to taking part in that session when it takes place. I suspect and hope in November. I thank the minister for confirming that Hunterston will continue to be closely monitored to ensure that it remains operationally safe for the expected duration of its working life, which is expected to end in 2023. Can the minister confirm that, if there is any possible threat to public safety, remedial action will be immediately taken? If the interests of safety to Hunterston be has to close sooner than 2023, hundreds of people will continue to be employed at Hunterston through commencement of a decommissioning process that will last for several decades at least. I appreciate that Mr Gibson, as the local member, has been assiduous in representing the interests of his constituents who work at Hunterston, not least when we attended together in the event where the education centre was opened and when we went on a tour of the plant. The plant is accessible to all members. Mr Gibson asks a series of questions about what may happen in relation to Hunterston in the future. The facts at the moment are that the life extension was fairly recently granted in 2023. A very rigorous process is in application. I am satisfied with that. The Scottish Government is regularly in contact with the company, and the company is willing and is happy to have an open and transparent approach. I am hopeful that, although difficulties arise, they are dealt with in a business-like and efficient way, and that none of the eventualities that the member raises will in fact occur, and that the station will continue to operate effectively and safely throughout the remainder of its anticipated life. The First Minister recently wrote to EDF, the operator of Hunterston, admitting that we need our nuclear fleet well into the next decade, since the two stations generate just under half of our electricity. It is very welcome to have heard from the Minister today the public reassurance that he has given on the safety of Hunterston and its capacity to continue to generate electricity. However, would it not have been better if the Scottish Government had issued that reassurance yesterday, rather than have the Deputy First Minister call this issue hugely concerning, simply contributing to the alarm that the minister himself has said that we need to avoid? Is not the problem that, as always, the Scottish Government is trying to face both ways at the same time when it comes to nuclear power? If I stick with the facts, the facts are that, ever since I was appointed to this post, I have made it clear that there is a continuing role for nuclear generation in Scotland of the existing power stations. That is something that was made clear from almost the outset of my tenure since 2011. It comes as news to people who do not follow the official report that is usually MPs, not so frequently MSPs. Of course, the real challenge is quite simply this. We expect Hunterston to continue to generate to 2023 and, of course, to turn S within Mr Gray's constituency, which I have also visited. Provided that it can do so efficiently and safely, we support that and play an important part of the grid. The problem is that the nature of the transmission charges in Scotland being 35 per cent of the total, with 12 per cent of the generating capacity, means that, were we to seek to replace thermal generation, for example, then how would any company investing hundreds of millions of pounds choose to invest in a place where we have to pay an extra £40 million a year? No-one has answered that question from either of the UK parties. Until and unless they do, they will not get anywhere with those political arguments, because those are the commercial realities that have not been addressed by the UK Government over the last decade. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is in the Conservative party's plans to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998. The Scottish Government is strongly opposed to any attempt by a future UK Government to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 or to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 exists to protect the interests of everyone in society. The safeguards in the act have been actively used to protect the everyday rights of ordinary people in Scotland, including by helping some of the most vulnerable in society to challenge iniquitous policies such as the bedroom tax. The Scottish Government's position is that implementation of the Conservative party's proposals would require legislative consent, and that this Parliament should make clear that such consent will not be given. Jamie Hepburn As the minister has shared the concerns expressed by Professor Alan Miller, chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission that the Conservative party's plan is, and I quote, irresponsible, undermines the rule of law, so it is a dangerous precedent to other states and risks taking us backwards when it comes to protecting people's rights in everyday life. Of course Professor Miller is absolutely correct to issue that warning, and over the last week we have seen some highly irresponsible proposals and statements from people who hold high political office and, frankly, who should know better. A tax on human rights must never be used as a cheap political manoeuvre by any party. David Cameron and Chris Grayling are running scared of UKIP and pandering to the europhobic extremists within their own party, and they do not appear to care about the damage they are doing. Those are dangerous proposals that threaten the rights that all of us enjoy. If they were ever implemented, they would inflict immense damage on both the United Kingdom's international reputation and on international efforts to protect and secure human rights around the world. We could hardly lecture other people if we are not prepared to abide by those international rules ourselves. Scotland, frankly, deserves better. The rest of the UK deserves better. The international community deserves better. The influence that Scotland and the UK have in the wider world means that we, in this Parliament, have a responsibility to show leadership on the issue and to make it clear that what Chris Grayling is proposing is simply unacceptable. That is something on which the overwhelming majority of members of this Parliament, I am sure, agree. The minister alluded to the fact that, last year, a woman with multiple sclerosis was successful in challenging Glasgow City's council's decision to apply the bedroom tax against her on human rights grounds. Does the minister share, in my concerns, that such recourse could be stripped away if the human rights act was scrapped? Is not that a perfect example of why the human rights act matters to us all? Of course, it is a precise example of the danger of the changes that seem to be being proposed. Chris Grayling said in the document on Friday that what he wants to do is limit the use of human rights laws to the most serious cases. Of course, we have not got a list of what those most serious cases might be or what might be, in his mind, trivial cases. The paper goes on to say that the use of the new British Bill of Rights will be limited to cases that involve criminal law and the liberty of an individual, the right to property and similar serious matters. There will be a threshold below which convention rights will not be engaged, ensuring UK courts strike out trivial cases. Of course, what might be trivial to Chris Grayling might be a matter of near life and death to an ordinary human being in our society, and it does sound very much like an excuse for depriving the most vulnerable people in society of hard enforceable rights. It sounds like a mechanism for removing the right to challenge unfair and unjust policies, like a plan to silence dissent and prevent inconvenient court rulings that demonstrate just how ill-conceived and damaging policies like the bedroom tax are. That is not just my view, it is not just the view of the Scottish Government, it also happens to be the view of some very big names within the Tory party itself. Ken Clark has voiced precisely the same concern, and this Parliament cannot allow it to happen. It is a principle that should unite us all. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Does the minister consider there is an opportunity here to sort out some of the not insignificant problems that have arisen from the incorporation of ECHR into the Scotland Act without fully appreciating the unintended consequences? I notice that the member has not bothered to give us any specific examples of what those specific problems might have been. I do believe that, occasionally, Governments can be made uncomfortable by decisions that are made elsewhere in human rights, but in a sense that is as it should be. In the early years of this Parliament, I then justice minister was warned frequently and vociferously that the slopping out process in our prisons would simply not stand in human rights, but nevertheless chose to take the budget for fixing it away and, lo and behold, ultimately went to court and, of course, it did not stand. It is not as if we do not understand often in advance when things are going to be a problem and we should be able to try and look forward to fix them. Sometimes Governments will be discomforted by results, but if a bill of rights, if human rights did not occasionally discomfort Governments, what on earth would be the point of having it in the first place? Thank you. The next item of business is stage 3, proceedings on the court reform Scotland bill.