 Good afternoon. This afternoon is a statement by Paul Wheelhouse on the review of underground coal gasification. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. Minister, I call you to start. 15 minutes please. Presiding Officer, this Government is taking a clear and consistent approach to understanding the potential role for emerging technologies that could be used to further develop Scotland's hydrocarbon resources. That approach is one of caution while we gather and consider evidence on those new technologies. Presiding Officer, this precautionary approach is the right approach and it is one that has been widely supported by communities, industry and other interested parties. I am aware that there have been some recent examples of misunderstandings regarding the different technologies involved and I think it would be useful to take a moment to reiterate our position on unconventional oil and gas before I turn to the separate issue of underground coal gasification. On 28 January 2015, the Government put in place a moratorium on unconventional oil and gas, which means that no such activities can currently take place in Scotland. The moratorium covered hydraulic fracturing or fracking, as it is often referred to, and coal bed methane. The moratorium followed the publication of a comprehensive report by our independent expert scientific panel on unconventional oil and gas. I encourage members of the chamber to go back and look at the report to refresh their memories on its detail. That report recognised that, while there was a considerable body of international research and evidence on unconventional oil and gas, there were gaps in key areas of evidence, including on climate change impacts, public health and decommissioning. The moratorium on unconventional oil and gas ensures that no fracking takes place while we explore those in other issues, such as traffic and economic impacts in detail before holding a full and comprehensive public consultation. I can confirm today that the independent projects that we commissioned to examine unconventional oil and gas in more depth are near incompletion. As was widely reported at the time, there were delays to commissioning a transport research project. Despite acting swiftly to resolve those issues, that sequence of events has had an inevitable effect on the timetable for completing and publishing our research, but I can assure the chamber that the final project reports, which will form one of the world's most wide-ranging investigations into unconventional oil and gas, will be published in full as soon as possible after recess. As members are no doubt aware, there are strongly held views across Scotland on unconventional oil and gas and real concerns amongst communities. We must recognise, listen to and respond to those concerns. That is why the publication of the research reports will be followed by an extensive public consultation that will take place as planned in winter 2016-17. The consultation will give people across Scotland the opportunity to consider, scrutinise, debate and set out their views on those technologies and the evidence. Given the seriousness of the issue, that is the right and proper way to proceed. To make a decision now would be to deny the people of Scotland a voice on this crucial issue, and I now want to turn to a different technology, one that is also very much a matter of interest to communities across Scotland, particularly around the first of fourth. Underground coal gasification, or UCG for short, is a process for converting coal into gas while underground via combustion. The technology requires two wells to be drilled, an injection well through which gases are pumped to create high-pressure combustion of the coal and a production well through which the resultant syngas can be brought to the surface. Syngas is a mixture of gases, methane, hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, which can be used as a fuel or as a feedstock for chemical products. Unlike hydraulic fracturing or coal bed methane, there are very few examples of this technology being used commercially anywhere in the world. In recent years, there has however been interest in deploying this technology in Scotland and the UK Government through the coal authority have issued coal mining licences for potential UCG sites in the first of fourth. I want to stress that no planning or environmental consents for UCG have been issued in Scotland. Planning and environmental protection are fully devolved matters, and both consents are necessary before a development could begin. On 8 October 2015, the Scottish Government put in place a specific moratorium on UCG, separate to the moratorium on unconventional oil and gas, using the planning powers available to the Scottish Government so that evidence on this technology could be gathered and considered. To develop this evidence base, we asked Professor Campbell Gemmell, Professor of Environmental Research, Policy, Regulation and Governance at the University of Glasgow to undertake an independent examination of UCG. I wish to advise members that Professor Gemmell's report has now been published, it is copies at the rear of the chamber, I believe. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Gemmell for his work and for preparing a confident and comprehensive assessment of the technology. The report, which has been informed by literature and through in-depth interviews with academics, industry, NGOs, community groups and regulators, notes that there are substantial coal resources in Scotland that could potentially be exploited by UCG technologies with the greatest reserves of coal in Central Scotland, Ayrshire, Clackmannanshire and East Fife. The commercial value of those reserves, if utilised for UCG development, would of course depend upon gas market prices and competition, the quality and volume of gas, consistency of throughput and other economic factors. On potential impacts from UCG, Professor Gemmell's report makes a number of observations that I believe raised serious concerns over the future of this industry in Scotland. Firstly, there are very few comprehensive or peer-reviewed studies examining environmental and health impacts. Where impacts have been documented, these have been from trials rather than from full commercial scale activity. Where the industry has operated, which is typically at a pilot or trial scale, there is emerging evidence of significant environmental impacts. That includes soil contamination and exposures of workers to toxins, resulting from major operational failures. A number of failures in Australia have resulted in prosecutions being brought. Professor Gemmell also raises concerns that the current regulatory framework is insufficiently clear and that we need to be improved to protect the environment, public health and workers' health and safety. Turning to the important issue of climate change, Professor Gemmell notes that UCG produces a variety of greenhouse gases, many without current viable market outlets. Professor Gemmell concludes that, and I quote, climate change and decarbonisation targets would be very seriously impacted by unmitigated releases of UCG greenhouse gases if operated at scale, making the achievement of current or stronger commitments much more difficult if not impossible. That would particularly be the case where gas production is not combined with a suitable removal, storage, offset or compensation method, for example carbon capture and storage. Professor Gemmell also concludes that a step change in the availability of robust data and science would need to take place before the technology could be reliably assessed. In Professor Gemmell's words, and I quote again, a very substantial transformation in available data is needed. In conclusion, Professor Gemmell states that, and I quote, it would be wise to consider an approach to UCG based upon a precautionary presumption, unquote, and it would appear logical, as he says again, to progress towards a ban, unquote. Presiding Officer, having considered the report in detail, it is the Scottish Government's view that UCG poses numerous and serious environmental risks and on that basis the Scottish Government cannot support this technology. Accordingly, UCG will have no place in Scotland's energy mix at this time. I acknowledge the interest that there has been in this technology in Scotland. I am confident that any companies with an interest in UCG would aim to operate to the highest standards. I also acknowledge the shortage of reliable information that Professor Gemmell was able to identify and therefore grateful to him for the lengths he went to that ensured he reached out to a broad spectrum of interested parties and community groups both in Scotland and worldwide. I will ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for views and evidence to be brought forward and considered as we develop and consult on our energy strategy for Scotland, which will set out an energy mix for the future that does not include underground coal gasification. Today, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, setting out the Scottish Government's concerns. I have asked him not to grant any further licences for UCG in Scotland and I have also asked him to revoke all existing licences. I understand that the UK Government is also considering its position on UCG and an announcement is due shortly. I expect that the Conservative members in the chamber may have sought to familiarise themselves with the position that is likely to emerge. However, it is a matter of great regret that this Parliament does not have the necessary powers over the licensing regime for UCG. The Scottish Government therefore intends to continue to use the planning powers available to us to ensure that UCG applications do not receive planning or environmental permission. I cannot predict what kind of clean energy technologies may be available in the decades to come, but what is certain is that this coal resource will still be here. The position that I have announced today on UCG is a clear validation of the evidence-based approach that this Government is taking. We live in a world where the pace and scale of technological innovation is increasing. That is a testament to our collective ingenuity and must be supported and embraced wherever possible. However, when necessary, we must be ready to pause so that we can consider and interrogate the evidence and be ready to act accordingly, which I believe that we have done today. The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I will intend to allow around 30 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. With the help of members who wish to ask a question, we are to press the request to speak buttons now. I first will call Alexander Burnett, and it will be followed by Claudia Beamish. Thank you, and I thank the minister for advance notice of his statement. I am, however, deeply disappointed, along with many oil workers trying to find re-employment in the stance that the Scottish Government is taking on UCG today. Their position two weeks before conference is of no surprise and marks yet another missed SNP opportunity. It is evident that we must switch to a low-carbon economy, and UCG is certainly one of the fuels that we can use to do that. It is perhaps a shocking indictment that their own expert, Professor Campbell Gemmell, writes in his report today, but whilst the regulatory framework is potentially adequate, it is currently fragmented, insufficiently clear, but does not fit well together for the ease of use by the operator, for the integrated protection of the environment, or for the reassurance of the public. So would the minister agree that one of the main reasons that this cannot go ahead is because the regulatory framework in Scotland is not good enough? Whose fault is that? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that it is very interesting that Mr Burnett has changed his tone markedly from the performance, if I can call it performance, in Good Morning Scotland this morning, where, when asked by the presenter, the Scottish Government has gone through a process here, a moratorium, an independent report, is that not the right way forward, the right way to proceed? Mr Burnett said, I think so. But at the end of the day, when you have a report, you have to listen to the scientific advice that you are given, and we don't believe that the Scottish Government is doing that. What else are we doing other than listening to the scientific evidence that says that this industry cannot safely be deployed in Scotland? Mr Burnett points to the industry that he cannot question seriously this Government's commitment to the oil and gas industry. We are doing extensive work through our oil and gas jobs task force and also the work that he is, I am sure, aware of on the transition training fund to help workers from the oil and gas industry into alternative employment. We are doing everything that we can to pick on an issue that he has obviously had to change his script since, presumably, consulting his colleagues south of the border. On this point about the low-carbon economy and the regulation, there is no point in having regulation put in place for an industry that is not going to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the environment and the scientific evidence proves that it is not acceptable at this time. Professor Gemmell has recommended that we move towards a ban. Perhaps Mr Burnett should listen to Professor Gemmell. Claudia Beamish, please. Can I thank the minister for prior sight of the statement and Professor Gemmell's independent review into underground coal gasification? The statement highlights concerns about, I quote, toxic contamination and exposures of workers to toxins, resulting from major operational failures and a great deal more. Concerns about climate change are also recognised in the statement and report. It is a welcome first step that the Scottish Government intends and I quote again, to continue to use the planning powers available to us to ensure that UCG applications do not receive planning or environmental permission. That is where that quote ends and that UCG will not be included in the energy strategy. The report recognises the importance of the precautionary principle and states that it will appear, I quote again, logical to progress towards a ban. Surely minister, a similar precautionary principle applies to all forms of unconventional oil and gas extraction. The Parliament has already raised concerns about the unconventional oil and gas extraction and will the Scottish Government now respect the will of the Scottish Parliament and introduce an outright ban immediately on all forms of unconventional gas extraction? First of all, I welcome Claudia Beamish's welcome of the steps that we have taken today. That is positive. I understand the position that the Labour Party has taken on this issue and I am not challenging the right to do so. However, I would gently put it to Claudia Beamish and her colleagues in the Labour Party that we have proven today that we can take a sensible precautionary approach. There is a moratorium in place that prevents any such activity of coal bed methane extraction or hydraulic fracturing happening in Scotland while we do the necessary scientific research to understand the impacts of the industry. The expert panel revealed that there were some significant gaps and I am sure that Claudia Beamish recognises those gaps that needed to be filled in our understanding. We are going through that process. We will then, once we have published the reports and I have set out today the rough timescale for that happening, we will commit to an extensive public consultation to allow the people of Scotland to have a say on this matter. I think that that is very important. The evidence that Professor Gemill has set out is extremely clear in the case of this particular technology, but we have two separate technologies and we have tried to deal with those separately in the basis that we have set out to Parliament before and I repeat again today. Given undertaking the member, we will take very seriously the scientific evidence that comes forward in those industries but we will also consult the public and give stakeholders from environmental NGOs through to the industry and the wider public the chance to have a say on that evidence and to augment it where necessary or criticise it where they feel that is justified. The vast majority of my constituents in Falkirk East will warmly welcome the decision on UCG by the Scottish Government. Clearly opening up any new fronts in fossil fuel extraction is bad for the climate. Only this week we heard again about renewables achieving new records with the news from WWF Scotland that for two days in September, wind power generated the equivalent of all Scotland's electricity needs for the day. Does the minister agree with WWF and the Committee on Climate Change that we must build on our renewable electricity revolution and expand it to other sectors such as heat and transport? I very much agree with the sentiment behind the Angus MacDonald's question. We have, as I am sure Mr MacDonald knows, the plan to publish a draft energy strategy by the early part of next year, by hopefully January next year to coincide with the climate change plan delivery of that and the two strategies are very closely integrated. I am sure that he understands. We are sticking to have a balanced energy mix in Scotland, but it would be no secret that this Government believes very strongly that our future lies in a low-carbon, decarbonised electricity generation system, and that is where we are putting a considerable amount of effort. So we will set out technology by technology what approach we believe we can take to pursue that low-carbon future and to support the growth of renewables. We are saying before I am criticised by Conservative members opposite that we have very much a belief in the future of our oil and gas industry as well as a traditional industry. We have to achieve a low-carbon future, but we know that oil and gas will be important for many years to come and will provide feedstock for petrochemicals in other industries as well. However, I reassure the member that we are taking the development of our renewable energy industry extremely seriously and we would challenge the UK Government to back that industry with appropriate routes to market for onshore wind, tidal energy and other technologies and pumped hydro to make sure that we can maximise the opportunities in Scotland. Murdoff Rees, if you follow by John Mason, Mr Rees. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Until recently, the Scottish Government's websites said this. Alternative mining technologies such as underground coal gasification are attracting interests both globally and from a number of developers in Scotland. The Scottish Government are supportive of such innovative technologies which offer the potential for a secure, economic and low-carbon energy store. Indeed, as predecessor Fergus Ewing said in April last year, we should never close our minds to the potential opportunities of new technologies. Does the minister recognise that the dismay of many an industry, that the closed mine, the open mine rather of Fergus Ewing has been replaced with his closed mine? I am pleased to see that Murdoff Rees is being as charitable as he always is, but I would say in relation to the comments on the website, we have taken a genuinely technology neutral stance on this. We have looked at the technology that we have commissioned. Indeed, my predecessor, Fergus Ewing, who accuses of being open mine commissioned the very research that I am reporting on today, which concluded that this technology cannot safely be deployed at this time of Scotland. Therefore, this Government has taken forward energy strategy with no place for underground coal gasification in our energy mix. I think that that is a reasonable approach to take. Fergus Ewing has commissioned the research and it is my duty to report on that research. The results have been perhaps unappealing to Mr Fraser and his predisposition towards fossil fuels, but I would certainly challenge him to challenge the research that Professor Gamill has produced today, which is very conclusive about the risks that it poses to the environment and the health and safety of the workers involved. Let's not forget that. With the risk of underground explosions and explosions on the surface, we have to take account of those matters and, in this case, we have decided that this is not an acceptable industry at this time of Scotland. However, the resource will still be there, the coal will still be there and if safe clean technologies which do not damage the environment can come forward at some point in the future, it is still there to be exploited. John Mason, followed by Claire Baker. Mr Mason. The minister referred to the energy strategy. Can the minister assure us, is he convinced that we can ensure that we can generate the energy and the jobs that we want and need, we can allow poorer people to eat their homes and we can still safeguard the environment? Can we get a balance between all of those? I very much agree with the point that we can, I believe that we are taking a forward approach with our energy strategy by looking at a whole system approach to our energy use in Scotland and energy supply. We will be looking at how we can reduce demand crucially as well as improving fuel poverty and helping individuals to have a more sustainable future and to help them with the financial implications of rising costs of energy but also delivering on our climate change ambitions which are about trying to ensure that we meet our very ambitious targets both for 2020 and indeed 2050 and ensure that the member is aware that the First Minister has signalled that we seek to increase the ambition of this Government in tackling climate change so that it makes all the more important that we take into account the impact of an industry like that potentially on our climate change targets and without the potential for mitigation through CCS or other approaches that is another significant reason why we could not pursue this industry at this time but I certainly give the member an assurance that issues such as district heating and the heat mapping are very much in our thoughts and also taking forward Scotland's energy efficiency programme as a national infrastructure project will allow us to tackle fuel poverty and help to reduce emissions from our domestic sector. Clare Baker, who is followed by John McAlpine. Presiding Officer, I first asked the Scottish Government to ban UCG in 2013 and I have been raising concerns about the issue ever since. However, the previous energy secretary said that it was not possible for the Scottish Government to rule out UCG and so I am glad to see the current energy minister take a very different view and I want to commend him for taking the decision today to rule out UCG as part of Scotland's energy mix. Can I ask the energy minister if he is planning to issue revised and appropriate planning guidance to local authorities in the back of today's decision? Minister. Of course, issues to do with planning policy would be a matter for the relevant minister and it is not my gift to do that but I will certainly make sure that that point is raised with my colleagues. However, I would say that by making a firm statement in our energy strategy and also making it clear that we are not going to issue any planning permissions or environmental consent licensing that effectively takes to us a position where it would be impractical for a project to be developed in Scotland. We have legal constraints on us and the licensing is still undertaken by the UK Government and we have made an appeal today through the letter that I have sent to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State, for those licenses that are already in existence to be revoked and for new licenses to be prevented to respect the decision that we have made today. However, as a matter of planning policy I will make sure that that point is raised with my colleagues. Joan McAlpine, we are followed by Maurice Golden, Ms McAlpine. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would also like to welcome the minister's statement. The UK coal authority has already issued licenses for underground coal gasification beneath the Solway at Gretna but I am pleased to say that the company that received those licenses has now abandoned its plans and folded. Does the announcement today mean that my constituents in the area can be reassured that underground coal gasification will not now take place under the Solway in the future? Minister. That is an important point. As I outlined in my statement, this Government intends to use its powers to block UCG activity in Scotland. So, in answer to Joan McAlpine's point, as I say, I have written to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy making clear in the Scottish Government's view that the UK Government should not issue further licenses for UCG in Scotland and that existing licenses should be revoked. That would mean that no activity in relation to UCG can take place. However, the licence in the Solway forth is due to expire in December 2016. I understand that the licence holder, five-quarter energy limited, has ceased trading in the UK and I trust that these actions will reassure the member. Given that climate change is a global issue that requires global solutions, can the minister assure this chamber that this is not a parochial decision by categorically stating that Scotland will not import gas obtained via this method now or in the future from anywhere else in the world? I would certainly encourage Mr Golden to have a conversation with Mr Fraser because there seems to be a bit of a dichotomy in the Conservative Party on the future of Grangemouth. On the one hand, I remember praising the importing of gas to Scotland to secure the future of Grangemouth and on the other hand, I remember criticising that approach. Those are commercial decisions that are taken by NAOS, which is a major employer. The Government supports Grangemouth as a plant and recognises its important role in local economy, but those matters are best left to the Government. I would point out to the member that Jim Rackliffe, the Peel Presiding Officer, for embarking from the seating position in perhaps Mr Fraser— I thought that you were tough enough but Mr Fraser, you have had your seat. Jim Rackliffe, who I am sure Mr Golden will recognise as a key figure in NAOS, has said that Grangemouth has at least 20 years of life in it with the importing of gas to Scotland from overseas, and that is a commercial decision that the company has taken. Does the minister share my astonishment that the Scottish Government has repeatedly been criticised by the Tories for taking advice from a wide range of independent experts, pledging to publish that advice in full and promising to give the people of Scotland a chance to make their views heard? Absolutely, I do. We have been consistently clear in our position on this unconventional oil and gas, the only political party to be so. I disagree with Michael Gove, a colleague of the Conservatives, of course, who in Brexit said that people in this country have had enough of experts. Look where that got, Michael Gove. Maybe the country would not be in such a big mess in terms of the impact of Brexit, likely to fall on us if Conservative ministers, and at the time as he was, Conservative minister, had listened more to the experts. We believe that people of Scotland, importantly, are smart enough to see the value of seeking out evidence and interrogating it before coming to a decision, and we are committed to allowing the public to have their say on this crucial issue. I would challenge the Conservatives as to why they are afraid to listen to the views of the people of Scotland on these important technologies and to hear their thoughts on the future of this technology. Thank you. Mark Ruskell, followed by Claire Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I warmly welcome this report and its conclusions? It not only validates a robust science-led approach but validates the concerns of communities around the Firth of Forth and Solway and across Scotland. Concerns that have been rubbish by an aggressive industry over many years are now endorsed by this Parliament. Their voices have been heard. Can I ask the minister now you have identified the use of planning powers as the route to a permanent ban? Then when will the Scottish Government make amendments to the Scottish planning policy and the national planning framework to embed this into policy in a way that is legally watertight? I hear your answer to Claire Baker in relation to embedding this into the energy strategy. I also note that you wrote to her as a planning in 2015 but I do not think that that is enough. You need to explain how you are going to embed this into planning policy. Minister? Well, it is a very important question and I recognise a point that was made by Claire Baker in the same regard. I think that what I have to highlight is that the Government has announced its policy decision on the future of UCG today. We have committed and I have mentioned it in my statement. We will undertake an SEA, Strategic Environmental Assessment. It is part of our energy strategy where we will set out that we are not supporting this technology. We have to wait obviously for that to be included but we are very clear about our position but we have to go through due process. Once we have that position concluded, the energy strategy obviously has relevance in relation to planning decisions and planning matters but I will take forward the point that Mr Ruskell and indeed Claire Baker have made today and make sure that we can give clarity to both members on that point and any other members interested in this issue. Thank you Claire Adamson for following by Jackie Baillie, Ms Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As I have always been mentioned by Mr Ruskell and Mr MacDonald, I am sure that communities on both sides of the fourth will be relieved to hear the minister provide such clear assurance on underground co-glassification and his willingness to let the people of Scotland's voice be heard. Can the minister give assurance that the views of the people of Scotland will be taken fully into account when also considering hydraulic fracturing or fracking should this happen in Scotland? Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Our consultation on unconventional oil and gas which will take place and schedule this winter 2016-17 will, I promise, be a comprehensive exercise that will take on board range of views not only from the public but will allow scientific evidence to be presented both for or against relevant technology. But we will give everyone who has an interest in this issue an opportunity to express their view. And consultation of the people of Scotland will be a key element of our understanding of the issues around the future of both technologies. I give a commitment to the member that it will be very listening very carefully to the views of the people of Scotland. Thank you, Jackie Baillie if we are followed by Willie Coffey, Ms Baillie. Can I welcome the minister's announcement today which I believe recognises the very significant risk to both the environment, communities and workers from UCG? But can the minister tell us what preparations he has undertaken should there be a legal challenge and what is his expected timeline for a response from the UK Government confirming that they will revoke those licences? Minister. Well, I don't want to be churlish about the UK Government but my expectations about timing of replies is coloured by the slow pace of replies to me on other matters. But we'll obviously, I'm sure it's a high profile matter indeed with the due support I'm sure of the Conservative members to seek clarity on the issue. I'm sure we can get a quick reply from Mr Clark. But I do want to highlight that we obviously have going through what we believe is a due process to the evidence gathering by Campbell Gemmell has been very thorough. We have read the report, we have come to a decision as to the future of the technology our suggested approach given that we're not proposing to actually bring in a technology is to just make that clear in the energy strategy and to take that forward through the strategic environmental assessment associated with the energy strategy to give potential route for people who want to complain about this approach being taken to make their views known and we believe we're following due process in that regard. Once the energy strategy is indeed adopted and finalised then that position would be ratified assuming that there's no showstoppers in the SEA process itself. But we believe that's the correct due process to follow in this case. I'm happy to keep the member informed as we undertake that journey. Thank you. Willie Coffey, we're followed by Elaine Smith. Mr Coffey. Thank you. Presiding Officer, there appears to have been some confusion amongst some Tory MSPs recently about the difference between underground coal gasification or UCG and fracking. Does the minister share my hope that the forthcoming publication of the expert reports on unconventional oil and gas will lead to a better informed debate in this chamber and across the country? Beftime in hand, minister. You can give a very fulsome response. We've just got Ms Smith to come next. I will happily do so, Presiding Officer. I think it is an important point. I mean, we have seen quite a lot of confusion both in the media and indeed in the chamber from some quarters around the different technologies. We do, as that's why I've taken some time today in my statement to try and make clear the differences between the technologies and the fact that we've got different procedures in place to try and make sure that we take forward the scientific evidence gathering for technologies. Clearly in the case of the work that was done by the expert panel on unconventional oil and gas, there were some significant issues that needed to be addressed in terms of the health impact, decommissioning issues and climate change impacts, and that has required us to go through a journey of commissioning reports and receiving those. I've yet to see them myself, but I will see them in the near future and will be able to report back to Parliament on the nature of the findings there. But in the case of underground coal gasification, we were able to take forward this exercise separately through Professor Campbell Gemmell. It's fair to say that there's far less evidence internationally of its deployment, certainly, as I said in my statement, or anything other than a trial basis or pilot basis, and therefore we're able to come to a quite a clear conclusion from the basis of the analysis that Professor Gemmell has presented to us. However, I do take Mr Coffey's point entirely that this process will hopefully help once we publish the reports, educate members across the chamber as to the differences between the technologies, but increasingly inform the public and then invite the public to give their view on the future of the technologies. Having said that, I have time in hand. I now have an additional two speakers, which I don't mind at all. Elaine Smith, to be followed by Graeme Simpson and to be followed by Liam McArthur, in that order, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I welcome the Government's decision to stop UCG based on Professor Gemmell's review? I note that the minister in the statement also mentions fracking, which is of concern to many constituents in central region, and of course, this Parliament did vote to ban it. Is the minister like me concerned that fracking has been given to go ahead and Lancashire today, particularly given the previous earth tremors in Blackpool? When will the minister's consultation on fracking close, and when can we then expect a Government decision? Minister. On the first point on the decision on Lancashire, that is obviously a matter for the UK Government. I would merely contrast the approach that we have taken to date in trying to look at scientific evidence and then reach a considered conclusion in respect of this technology and the approach that we are taking in regards to hydraulic fracturing or fracking and coal bed methane, where we will be taking forward scientific evidence and then consulting the public on their view. I dare say that the community in Lancashire that has been affected may not have been fully consulted in the process. On the issues about timing of the reports, what I am trying to work with, we have consulted with all the stakeholders in regards to this, in terms of the industry, the communities and the NGO community around our thinking on this, but we are going to try and avoid a position where we compress consultation due to the Christmas period. So we are going to try and choose a timing carefully so that people have as long a period as possible to submit their views and we are going to try and be proactive in engaging community councils and other stakeholders to try and make sure that we give an open access to this as we possibly can and use existing Government portals to also promote the consultation online. So we are assuring the member doing what we can to prepare for a thorough consultation and the expectation there is going to be a lot of interest in this consultation from across the country not just in the communities affected and to ensure that we take on board all views as best we can. So we will keep the chamber informed about timing. I assure the member and we will do our best to make sure that nobody is unaware of the consultation itself. Thank you Graham Simpson for falling by Liam McArthur. Mr Simpson. Thank you. It's really a practical question for the minister around planning. I wasn't really sure about his answers. If an application was to come before a local authority and they were minded to grant it and they did grant it what would be the Government's response to that? Minister. I will put in record perhaps what our position is regarding this just so that it helps members. I appreciate Mr Simpson's third member to ask a very similar question around the certainty that we can give. Clearly we are saying today that the Scottish Government does not support the development of a UCG industry in Scotland. As I said in response to the second question that was raised recently, the forthcoming energy strategy will set out an energy mix for the future and it is the Scottish Government's preferred position that underground coal gasification should have no place in those plans. We have written on the issue of the licences to Greg Clark today and hope that that is progressed as quickly as possible to not only prevent new licences which would then remove the need to even consider planning issues if there are no licences being presented and also to revoke the existing licences so that there are no existing planning issues to resolve either. So in the absence of any licences being issued there is no need for the Government to deal with any planning applications clearly. But no planning on environmental consents for UCG have been issued in Scotland. Those are fully devolved matters and both consents are necessary before development can begin and the Scottish Government will continue to use such powers to prevent UCG in Scotland. But I do take the point that we will come to the chamber through SPICE or other means we will make sure that members are briefed in exactly the approach that we take to stop that happening. Liam McArthur, you will be the last questioner. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thought it would be helpful perhaps to allow colleagues participating in the next debate a little more time to get to the chamber, but can I start by thanking the Minister for Advance Sight? I've handled that already. I never had any doubt, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank the Minister for Advance Sight of the statement and very much welcome both the decision that he's announced today but also put on record my thanks to Campbell Gemmell and colleagues for the very arduous work that they've done over a number of months in coming forward with what I think is a very helpful report for the Parliament. The Minister in response to Elaine Smith went into a little bit more detail about the consultation in relation to fracking. I understand why he might not necessarily be able to put a time frame on it but can he perhaps explain what if any waiting will be given to the responses that come through in that consultation as he's already acknowledged views are very polarised on this issue and I think the concern may be that this is somehow just a numbers game or that in a sense that the consultation may almost be prejudged. So I think any advice that he can offer on the way that consultation will be handled and submissions to that consultation will be handled. I think it would be very helpful. Minister. I'm happy to address that. We will, as I said earlier, we'll certainly commit, we'll give more detail as we can to colleagues across the chamber as soon as we possibly can on this. But the general principle is it just going to be a numbers game? I don't think so. I don't think that would be appropriate but we will obviously take account of the strength of support or opposition to the technology. That is an important dimension amongst the communities that may be most affected by this clearly. But also, we do have to look at the merits of the arguments both for and against and try to take a considered view. So I don't want to prejudge how we will do it but we will give as much clarity so that those taking part in the consultation process know how they can best contribute and how they can best have an impact on the process taking the kind of quality and the detail that is supplied. Obviously, we are expecting that there will be a mixture of individual responses from a large number of people who pro or anti the industry. But also, there will be opportunities for those in the environmental NGOs and the industry itself to submit evidence that they believe is pertinent to the case for or against. So we are trying to, as I said earlier, be as open as possible and to allow as many people who wish to take part in the exercise to do so. It will have resource implications and so therefore it is difficult to be precise about the timing of publication but we are trying to do this in the context of delivering our energy strategy. So I think that Mr MacArthur is aware of the timescales for that. Thank you. That concludes questions on that statement and I'll, before we move on to exercise, my business allow the front benches to change over. Thank you very much.