 The next item of business is a statement by Paul Healhouse on unconventional oil and gas. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Paul Healhouse. Minister, 10 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to update Parliament on our consultation on unconventional oil and gas. This Government has continually presented impartial, independent information on unconventional oil and gas in order to encourage informed public discussion and debate, and our consultation is a continuation of that approach. Our consultation talking fracking, which we launched on 31 January, does not set out a specific policy proposal. Instead, it presents evidence and gives the public, businesses and organisations across Scotland the opportunity to consider and express their views on this evidence. This is a unique and important approach that demonstrates our commitment to exploring both the evidence and the views of people across Scotland without bias or prejudgment, and I will maintain that neutral position today. Unconventional oil and gas is a complex and controversial issue that has stimulated intense debate, motivated by deeply held and sincere views on all sides. Our approach therefore remains one of caution while we gather and consider evidence and the views of the public on this issue. Our cautious and evidence-led approach is the right approach, and it is one that has been widely supported by communities, industry and other interested parties. There are some who wish to pursue a gungho approach, either towards extraction or a ban, and we have put forward their own views without due concern for the differing interests and views of those who would be affected. It is the job of government, and one that I take seriously, to base our decisions on evidence, taking proper account of public opinions and to seek a collective way forward. As I have stressed before to this chamber at each step towards reaching a final decision, we must take a careful, considered and evidence-led approach, and we must do that alongside an informed public debate. Most of Scotland's unconventional oil and gas deposits occur in and around former coal fields and oil shale fields in Scotland's central belt, which are amongst the most densely populated parts of our country, as well as in the area around Canon Bay and Dumfrieshire. Scotland needs safe, clean, reliable and affordable energy to underpin the Scottish economy and to contribute to the wellbeing of our society. Scotland must also continue to demonstrate strong leadership on climate change, an issue in which everyone across Scotland has an interest. That is why it is so important that we not only consult local communities in the central belt and Dumfrieshire, but that we give communities, business and interest groups from across Scotland an opportunity to put their views across. It is also important to remember that this is not an issue that exists in isolation. Instead, the future of all potential energy sources must be viewed in the context of Scotland's wider energy strategy. The choices that Scotland makes about energy are amongst the most important decisions that we face. Our energy industry provides high-quality jobs and a vibrant climate for innovation, and affordable energy provision is a prerequisite for healthy, fulfilling living and productive competitive business. Achieving our vision for energy is also crucial to efforts to tackle fuel poverty and to prevent damaging effects of climate change, as part of the global community's fight to limit global temperature increases to two degrees Celsius or less. The Scottish Government is determined to support a stable managed transition to a low-carbon economy in Scotland. However, our draft energy strategy also makes clear our commitment to the oil and gas industry throughout the energy transition as a highly regulated and stable source of energy within an industry providing an estimated 124,500 high-value jobs and with the skills and expertise to meet the needs of the energy system of the future. Our draft energy strategy for Scotland also sets out the Scottish Government's position on underground coal gasification, a position that we took after a carefully considered period of evidence gathering. In my statement to the chamber on 6 October, I confirmed that underground coal gasification poses numerous serious environmental risks and should have no place in Scotland's energy mix at this time. As a result, our energy strategy sets out an energy mix for the future that does not include underground coal gasification. Our draft energy strategy is stimulating well-informed debate on the energy challenges in Scotland and policies needed to meet our aspirations to deliver a secure, sustainable energy future for all. I am keen to ensure that our energy strategy is infused with the thoughts and views of people from right across Scotland, and I would strongly encourage everyone to participate prior to the closing date of 30 May. The results of the consultation on unconventional oil and gas will be a key consideration in finalising our energy strategy later this year. I now wish to update the chamber on the Scottish Government's programme of evidence gathering and public consultation on unconventional oil and gas. To allow us to gather evidence to prepare a full public consultation, the Scottish Government put in place a moratorium on unconventional oil and gas in January 2015. That means that no such projects can take place, and for the avoidance of any doubt, the moratorium covers hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, and coal bed methane extraction technologies. In support of our cautious evidence-led approach towards unconventional oil and gas, the Scottish Government has taken steps to establish a comprehensive evidence base in which to consider the future of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland. In 2013, the Scottish Government asked an independent expert scientific panel to examine the scientific evidence on unconventional oil and gas in Scotland, and when the panel reported in July 2014, it identified a number of key gaps in the evidence base. On 8 October 2015, we set out details of the consultation timetable and programme of gathering further evidence to address the gaps identified by the panel. The Scottish Government reached a major milestone in November last year when we published a comprehensive suite of expert reports examining potential social, economic and environmental effects of unconventional oil and gas in more detail. The research was carried out by leading independent experts in their respective fields and the findings deepened our understanding of the issues. As we set out when we established the moratorium, the publication of the research has been followed by a period in which we and the public have had the opportunity to scrutinise and discuss the findings prior to the launch of the public consultation. I am confident that the reports that we have published deepened our knowledge of the evidence and shed light on the issues and choices that the industry presents. Now that both the public and those in the chamber have had time to examine the reports, conclusions and detail, I am sure that it is clear to all that no one study can give a conclusive view on this industry and whether it has a place in Scotland's energy mix. Some will say that this research shows that the economic impact is low and that environmental health and climate change risks are too great. Others say that the regulation risks can be managed and the potential economic gain cannot be ignored. The reports rightly do not make recommendations on whether unconventional oil and gas should be permitted or not. However, the science and evidence contained within them informed the debate and the discussion. To support this dialogue and debate, the Scottish Government published its consultation on unconventional oil and gas talking fracking on 31 January. To provide time for full and considered debate and to give the public and stakeholders time to respond, the consultation will last for four months, closing on 31 May. We have created a number of innovative ways for the public to engage in the consultation. In addition to the consultation document, we have launched a temporary unconventional oil and gas website, also called Talking Fracking. The site has been designed to provide a user-friendly route to accessing all the materials and evidence that support this consultation, and it would encourage those wishing to explore the issues further to visit this site. To help the consultation reach a range of audiences, the consultation document itself is available in alternative formats on request, including easy read, large print, Braille, British Sign Language and other languages that can be requested from the Scottish Government. We have also made provision to receive responses in alternative formats, for example spoken responses or languages other than English. Importantly, we have also prepared a discussion toolkit that has been designed to help communities and stakeholders to explore and discuss the issues in groups. The result of those discussions can be submitted to the Scottish Government and will be treated as a formal response to the consultation. I am pleased to inform the chamber that my officials have received a high volume of requests for consultation materials, including the discussion packs. I would also like to assure the chamber of the robust steps that the Scottish Government took to ensure that the evidence presented in the consultation and supporting materials was accurate and impartial. That included using direct quotes from the research projects and seeking assurance from the research contractors that our summaries were accurate. We have also undertaken a number of actions to promote the consultation via the local and national press and the consultation is being promoted through our digital and social media channels and via direct correspondence with a range of stakeholders, including community councils. We are seeing a strong response to this consultation into five figures so far and are satisfied that this level of participation indicates that the consultation is being viewed as a valuable process by the public. Presiding Officer, as I set out on 6 October, we are adopting a carefully considered process for reaching a decision on the future of unconventional oil and gas. I assure the views of the public, the evidence base and the views of Parliament are fully considered. Once the consultation closes and the results have been independently analysed and published, I reiterate our previous commitment to present our recommendation to Parliament and provide an opportunity to vote on it. After that, the Scottish Government will come to a considered judgment on the future of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland. Of course, we will respect the will of Parliament on this issue while also following the statutory assessments and procedures that are required. Our carefully considered approach to reaching a final position on unconventional oil and gas will ensure that we make the right choice for Scotland founded on the best available evidence. Given the significance of the issue, I am confident that that is the right and proper way to proceed. I take questions on the issues raised in the statement and intend to allow 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business. Could those members wish to press the request-to-speak buttons now? I call Alexander Burnett to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank the minister for advance notice of his statement. With such anticipation of his statement, I can only describe our disappointment with how little it says. Whilst many of us would have been hoping for progress in exploring Scotland's untapped riches, there was also a fear that an outright ban was the price of the greens of surveillance on Tuesday. However, the statement is none of these, talking fracking and no action as usual. Given communities such as Croy, Cumbernauld and Coat Bridge are waiting to gain hundreds of millions of pounds through a share of the proceeds, is the minister finally today going to give us a date of when a decision will be made? Through to form, Mr Burnett strikes again. Mr Burnett knows that our position on the emerging energy technologies has been consistent. Credible and evidence is also in line with our manifesto in which we were overwhelmingly elected in May last year. Until recently, our steadfast evidence-led approach to underground coal gasification was heavily criticised by Mr Burnett and others in the Scottish Conservatives, only for the UK Government to belatedly follow Scotland's lead and move towards a position of not supporting the industry on climate change grounds. I have noted, as I am sure many have in this chamber, that the Scottish Conservatives make no reference to their position on underground coal gasification in their recently published environment policy paper. Of course, Mr Burnett and his colleagues have a history of flip-flopping on issues to do with oil and gas. Last year, we were told that—this is a serious point that Mr Fraser might want to listen to—we were told that the Conservatives had secured a deal for the oil and gas industry from George Osborne. Of course, he was reshuffled out. Before the spring budget, the Conservatives were telling us that the oil and gas industry did not need any additional support in the budget. Of course, the chancellor recognised that it was the Scottish Government that had been pressing for changes in the fiscal regime to help the oil and gas industry. I will get on with doing the job that I am doing—elected on a mandate to do exactly what I am doing—and I will leave to Mr Burnett to sit and scream from the sidelines. In May 2016, the Parliament voted to ban fracking. In November 2016, the minister came before Parliament with expert reports and told us that he was cautious and consulting. Now he is back here telling us again that he is consulting cautiously. What we have had is, frankly, 15 minutes from the minister, a repeat of what we had in November, nothing but padding, nothing new, nothing that delivers on SNP candidates' promises across the country to ban fracking and nothing that delivers on the will of Parliament. The minister tells us that we will get a vote in Parliament, although that is indeed his kind of him. Then he says that the Scottish Government will decide anyway that we could not make it up, but we have already had a vote in Parliament. Can the minister tell me that this is a bit like the independence referendum, and we will just keep having vote after vote until you get the answer that you want? Let us get some things straight. First of all, the Opposition asked for a statement in the middle of the consultation period, and we are happy to provide a statement to update the chamber on progress. I would have thought that that is something that Ms Bailey would welcome. The other aspect of that in which she refers to, in terms of the not having made a decision, is within the period of the consultation. It is normal practice to wait until consultation concludes before you reach a conclusion, especially when she is listening to the views of the people of Scotland. I would have thought that Ms Bailey would want to hear what the people of Scotland would say about fracking before reaching a position. She would also be mindful of the fact that we need to be in a position to have an evidence-based position before making a decision. I am keeping true to the words that I said when I launched the consultation and the statement in November that we will give Parliament a decision on this issue, and we will have to take account of other statutory procedures that then follow by assuring Ms Bailey that we will be listening to the will of Parliament at that time. I move to questions from the rest of Parliament. I have 11 people wanting to ask in 17 minutes, so I want questions, not opening statements. I call Angus MacDonald for if I might. Maurice Golden and Mr MacDonald set an example. The minister will be aware of the concerns in my constituency regarding the environmental risks of fracking in Falkirk district and the wider Falls valley. He will also be aware of the 15-year contract signed by Ineos for the supply of shell gas from the United States for the Grangemouth plant, which puts the future of the plant on a sure footing, which is extremely welcome. Does the minister agree with me that, as long as there is any prospect of environmental risk, there is no need for a dash for gas in Scotland? Can he reassure my constituents in Falkirk East who are deeply concerned about the potential impact that the fracking industry would have on their lives? I want to acknowledge, first and foremost, that Mr MacDonald has been consistent in his desire to express the views of his constituents in Falkirk East. He raised his important points. He is indeed correct that Ineos has secured a long-term supply of shell gas for the plant. We continue to support the plant as a key employer in his constituency and neighbouring constituencies. We are taking a very cautious approach here. We want to take very much account of the environmental impact, the economic impact and the impact of climate change and other factors before we reach a considered decision and assure Mr MacDonald that we are very much taking into account considerations around the environment in reaching a decision. Maurice Golden, will you follow by John Mason? KPMG's modelling, commissioned by the SNP Government, stated that community benefit payments could be as high as almost £1 billion. Parliament still requires a date for the decision, but if unconventional oil and gas extraction is permitted, would the SNP Government support a community benefit fund? As Mr Golden will know, community benefits are not something that is taken into account in planning decisions in any case, and I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the consultation. We would obviously have to look very carefully at the science around the environmental impact, the economic impact and take that public opinion into account as well before reaching a decision. I do not want to prejudge the process. I am aware of suggestions in relation to community benefit. First and foremost, we are focusing on the questions raised in the consultation itself, and we have encouraged Mr Golden and all of our members in the chamber to encourage their constituents to take part in that so that we can have as broad a range of views from the communities of Scotland as possible. First and foremost, we want to listen to the people and study the evidence that is submitted to us and then come to a decision. John Mason, followed by Claudia Beamish. Can the minister assure us that he will hold his nerve, he will listen to the public and will not be swayed by the extremists on either side? I have got to be careful here. I do not want to upset anyone in the chamber, Mr Mason, but certainly we are listening to a range of views and we are trying to do all we can to listen to all those who have an interest in this subject. It is one of the real merits of having the consultation. It gives people an opportunity to have their say and the evidence. If they disagree with it, they can put counter evidence and to come to a view ultimately based on that. We have independent analysis of the responses to look into the breadth of views that come forward. I assure the member that I will stay true to what we have committed to do, which is to listen to the people of Scotland who have a very important role in this process and to take very serious consideration of all the scientific evidence that has been presented to me. I will not be swayed by people on either end of the spectrum who are not prepared to listen to reason. Claudia Beamish, followed by Mark Ruskell, Ms Beamish. I thank you, Presiding Officer, for being as reasonable as possible. The minister has just spent 10 minutes of Parliament's time telling us nothing new of substance. This comes after he has spent 10 months, frankly, actively ignoring the will of Parliament. The Scottish Parliament has already voted for a ban on onshore fracking. I remember that it was my amendment. When will the minister finally accept that on the basis of the irrefutable climate science alone that my bill for banning fracking onshore in Scotland is the best way forward for a sustainable future for the people? First of all, I recognise that Claudia Beamish has had a genuine interest in this issue. I would not describe her in any way as an extremist on this point, so I want to note that. As to ignoring the bill of the Parliament, we have a very important commitment that we gave to the people of Scotland in the manifesto on which we were elected, which was to have an extensive evidence-based process to decide the position on fracking. That is what we stood on. That is what we are fulfilling as a Government. I believe that it is the right thing to do because it is to be fair to all sides, to listen to the evidence from all sides and to take a decision ultimately based on that evidence and the views of the communities that will be most affected by this. As Claudia Beamish knows, because I know that she has taken great interest in this and obviously in preparation of her bill, the areas that are covered, as I said in my statement, are largely in the most densely populated parts of our country. There is a huge interest among the communities of Scotland in that. We want to give people a chance to have a say. I think that that is a very important part of the process and it is something that we have committed to doing. As to the point about irrefutable science, the very point of having a consultation is to put the science out there and allow people to challenge it if they feel that it is inaccurate in any way and to receive counter-evidences as part of the consultation exercise. That I think is a responsible thing to do as well. When we reach a decision, it can be seen to have been entirely fair and one that we can all stand behind, I hope, in this Parliament. It seems that the minister has come to his chamber once again to say that now is not the time for a decision on fracking. I respect the fact that you have a timetable and I respect the fact that you have emphasised the importance of a legally binding and watertight decision, whatever that decision may be. How important is the consultation and the response to the consultation in terms of delivering a legally binding decision? If you do not get the level of detail and the level of responses that you hope to get, will that jeopardise whatever that decision is? The first thing to say is that I might be missed because I did not go into it in great depth, but we have already received over a five-figure number of responses. We are getting a very good response from across what I could not tell the member what the composition of those answers are because they are being gathered independently of myself. I am not wanting to interfere in that process, but I can assure the member that there is very strong participation in the consultation exercise. The importance of it is because of where the activity that is proposed to take place affects many communities across Scotland. It is only right that they have a say as to whether they value their environment and potential climate change impacts over potential economic impacts that the Conservatives and others have referred to. I think that that is very important to hear what the people of Scotland have to say, feed that into the decision and ultimately make a recommendation to Parliament. Ultimately, members in this chamber will have a very important role in the process as well, because we will put a recommendation to you and we will then give the chamber the chance to say where they think that we should go on the issue of fracking. Willie Rennie, followed by Clare Haughey, Mr Rennie. I thank the minister for an advanced copy of the statement. There is nothing new in the statement, but it reminds us that he continues to flout the will of Parliament. Has he had his ears boxed by the First Minister for doing so? I do not know how things worked in the last Labour and Lib Dem executive, but we work as a team in this Government. Minister, can you speak into the microphone? I apologise, Presiding Officer. One thing I would say in response to Mr Rennie about this issue, he says that there is nothing new. We have a consultation, we are updating Parliament in the progress of a consultation, we are sticking to the deadlines that we have committed to, there is no change in the deadlines. We are trying to respect Parliament by accepting a request to give a statement to the chamber, including from Liam McArthur, his colleague. I think that Mr Rennie would do well to recognise that, but we are sticking to the process that we have been elected on in our manifesto, and I believe that it has been backed by a number of key stakeholders who have said that it is the exact right thing to do, including many within the media and trade union movement and others. Mr Rennie perhaps may not like it, but we are doing what we promise to do, and I think that we are doing it well. Clare Haughey, followed by Murdo Fraser. What engagement has the Scottish Government had with stakeholders during their investigation into the impact of fracking? That is an important point that has been raised. We have carefully listened to our stakeholders in shaping the consultation itself. They had a big part in designing the consultation, and that is important to make. I have met key groups representing the full range of views on the issue of fracking, and my officials have filed a series of workshops with stakeholders on how best to encourage participation, a report of which has been publicly available on our website. Stakeholder interest has been crucially important in forming our approach to the consultation, and it shows the importance of having a consultation to listen to people, because there is such a range of strongly held views on both sides of the debate, and we have done our best. Of course, no consultation will ever be perfect, but we have done our best, Presiding Officer, to make sure that we try to take on board those points. Murdo Fraser, followed by Christina McKelvie. Earlier this year, the advertising standards authority ordered friends of the earth to stop publishing misleading claims about the impact of fracking on health and the contamination of drinking water. How will the Scottish Government ensure that the public responses to its consultation are not influenced by irresponsible, scaremongering and lies spread by so-called environmental groups, seeking to unfairly slant the responses that are received? I am not keen on the word lies in your question, even though it is not accusing MD in here. Minister. I will not make any judgment on any material from either side that has been put out there, but we have taken a conscious decision to commission independent evidence that we believe is objective, and we have gone around our business to make sure that it is as neutrally worded as we can make it in the consultation documents that we are affair to both arguments. We have avoided promulgating material from various campaign groups to avoid being accused, perhaps by Mr Fraser or others in this chamber, of promoting information that was incorrect. We have tried to stick to what we knew to be commissioned and commissioned on a scientific basis. We have had the chief scientific officer looking at it and we have had it heavily scrutinised before it went out to the public domain to be as neutrally worded as possible, so we are not providing leading or prejudicial responses within the consultation document. We can only do what we can do, and we have tried to make sure that information is widely accessible to the public as possible. Indeed, members in this chamber can help with that. Christina McKelvie, followed by Richard Leonard, Ms McKelvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. My constituents will welcome the chance to participate in this process. On another matter, can the minister tell us why unconventional oil and gas does not feature in the climate change plan? It is a good point. I know that it has been raised in the chamber before, and Christina McKelvie is right to raise it now. Unconventional oil and gas is currently covered by moratoriums. There is no unconventional gas activity happening in Scotland. We have since intervened with the UK Government, thankfully, not issued any new licences for activity in Scotland while our deliberations are continuing and we give a commitment while we are considering this issue. No fracking or unconventional gas activities will commence in Scotland. Therefore, the cabinet secretary for the environment has stated previously that that is why it is not reflected in the climate change plan. If, of course, there was a change in policy position, we would have to look at that position again, but, because the position is, there is no fracking. It is not in the plan. Can I ask the minister who the cabinet secretary for economy, jobs and fair work met this morning at the site of the biggest shale gas exploration licence holder in Scotland, Ineos, in Grangemouth, in advance of this statement to Parliament this afternoon? What was discussed and will the Scottish Government publish the minutes of that meeting? I am sure that Mr Lennon knows that the cabinet secretary met Ineos this morning, and he was at the request to discuss issues raised by the trade unions. There was not a discussion around the issue of our unconventional gas consultation, so I would ask the issue about publishing minutes. I am not sure that that is appropriate for a private meeting, but I will leave the member to raise that with the cabinet secretary. Richard Lyle Can the minister expand further? He spoke about what he is doing in regard to the consultation, but what other action can he take to encourage people to submit their views to the consultation on fracking? That is an important point. The clock is running down. We want to get as many responses as we can to the consultation and to make sure that we are represented by a view of the people of Scotland as possible. We will continue to use social media, the traditional media and other channels, including I would encourage MSPs in the chamber and indeed counters out and candidates out in the country to encourage constituents to take part in the consultation exercise and to give their views. It is very important, as I say, because of the location of the sites that we take full account of the views of the people of Scotland, but there are issues that should affect communities the length and breadth of Scotland in terms of climate change impact in other areas, so it is important that everybody who wants to take part in Scotland can do so. I thank the member for raising it and encourage all members here to continue to promote the consultation.