 The next item of business is a statement by Paul Wheelhouse on unconventional oil and gas. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement and therefore no interventions or interruptions. I call on Paul Wheelhouse. Ten minutes please, minister. I would like to take this opportunity to update Parliament on the progress of our research into unconventional oil and gas in Scotland. The Scottish Government has adopted a clear and consistent approach to emerging technologies that could develop Scotland's onshore hydrocarbon resources. Our approach to unconventional oil and gas is one of caution while we gather and consider evidence in those new technologies that have been proposed by industry. That process has already resulted in a decision last month not to proceed with underground coal gasification in Scotland. Against the backdrop of our cautious evidence approach there are some such as the UK Government who wish to pursue a gungho approach to support the industry or others who seek an immediate ban who do not want to wait for research and evidence and who have put forward their views without concern for differing interests and views of those who would be affected across Scotland. I have no doubt both are sincere in their views and beliefs but it is the job of Government to base our decisions on evidence, taking proper account of public opinions and to seek a collective way forward and we are deeply skeptical of the approach of the UK Government. There is much heat on this issue. It is our intention to go through a process that sheds light on these issues. In doing so we must also remember that shale resources in Scotland are located across the central belt of the Midland valley, one of the most densely populated areas of Scotland. Those communities would be directly affected by any unconventional oil and gas development and must be given genuine opportunities to explore and discuss the evidence and issues in depth and at length. Our precautionary consultative approach is the right approach and it is one that has been widely supported by communities, industries and other interested parties. To allow us to gather a comprehensive body of evidence and prepare for an inclusive debate and consultation we put in place a moratorium on unconventional oil and gas in January of 2015. That means that no such projects can take place. For the avoidance of any doubt, the moratorium covers hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, and co-bed methane technologies. Presiding Officer, today we have reached a major milestone in this process and I can confirm that the research reports have now been published in full. The research was carried out by leading independent experts in their respective fields and the findings will deepen our understanding of the issues. At this stage, the Scottish Government is not making any judgments on the findings. As we set out when we established the moratorium, the publication of the research will now be followed by a period where we and the public can scrutinise, question, challenge and discuss the findings before we begin a public consultation. We have provided the chamber with hard copies of executive summaries of the research and I encourage you all to read the reports at your leisure. I would now like to draw attention to some of the main aspects of the research that demonstrate the value and significance of the work that we have published today. Central to this work is the economic impact research carried out by KPMG, which has identified a number of potential industry development profiles in Scotland that have informed the other studies. Those scenarios are based on estimates of potential oil and gas resources that have been informed by discussions with stakeholders, including those representing industry and environmental interests. The study has quantified the associated economic impacts of any prospective activity to the Scottish economy in a range of measures, including expenditure, gross value added, tax revenues and employment. A number of projections for economic benefit and employment have been put forward previously. The report presents an impartial assessment of the potential impact that an industry in Scotland could have. KPMG concluded that, under its central scenario, 20 well pads of 15 wells each could lead to cumulative direct expenditure of £2.2 billion in Scotland over the periods through to 2062, which would create supply chain impacts and other induced economic impacts amounting to an additional £1.2 billion over the period, and be responsible for supporting up to 1,400 direct, indirect and induced jobs in Scotland at its peak. To put those economic impacts into context, the report states that, on an annual basis, this represents, and I quote here, on average not 0.1 per cent of Scottish GDP in our central scenario. The report also discusses a number of other potential economic considerations, including the use of gas as a feedstock in the petrochemical industry, the impact on local house prices, road use, agriculture, visual immunity, environmental costs and health costs. Given our commitments to carbon reduction and climate change, those impacts must be considered alongside any economic impact. The Committee on Climate Change was asked to examine the impacts on territorial carbon emissions of unconventional oil and gas activities in Scotland and to consider how the impacts might vary over time. The study sets out three tests that would need to be met for the development of unconventional oil and gas to be compatible with Scottish climate change targets. Those tests are, emissions are limited through tight regulation, Scottish unconventional oil and gas production displaces imports rather than increasing domestic consumption, and emissions from production of unconventional oil and gas are offset through reductions in emissions elsewhere in the Scottish economy. The study also provides a quantitative analysis of potential emissions under a number of regulatory and production scenarios. The Committee estimated that under a high production scenario, CO2 equivalent emissions in 2035 could be between 1.1 megatons per year and 2.6 megatons per year depending on the strength of regulation. Under the central production scenario, emissions are estimated to be 0.6 megatons per year in 2035 if the minimum necessary regulation were adopted. The overall conclusion of the health impact assessment conducted by Health Protection Scotland is that, I quote, the evidence considered was inadequate as a basis to determine whether development of shale oil and gas or coal bed methane would pose a risk to public health if permitted in Scotland. If an industry were to proceed, the report discusses a precautionary approach that would be proportionate to the scale of the hazards and to the potential health impacts. Health Protection Scotland note that this could be and I quote, could be based on a range of mitigation measures involving operational best practice, regulatory frameworks and community engagement. The examining transport impacts carried out by Ricardo estimates that an individual well-pad could require traffic movements to be sustained at around 190 per week for a period of approximately two years during the development phase. Ricardo noted that the main factor affecting traffic flows is the requirement for transportation of water. If that can be avoided, for example, by use of pipelines or reusing wastewater, Ricardo concluded that the impact can be significantly reduced. Ricardo also observed that any increase in vehicle movements and an increase in noise, vehicle emissions, road damage or traffic accident risks. Ricardo noted that, and I quote, provided the planning and EIA or environmental impact assessment system is properly implemented, any significant impacts would be avoided through the use of appropriate mitigation measures. However, the report also states, and I quote again, local communities would nevertheless experience an increase in traffic numbers potentially for an extended period of a number of years. The decommissioning study carried out by ACOM and Seismicity study carried out by British Geological Survey have each reviewed international literature and practice to draw conclusions on potential hazards and what, if any, steps could be taken to mitigate those hazards, including regulatory actions. ACOM concluded, and I quote, there is a low risk of post decommissioning well failure. ACOM also noted that there is potential for improvement in existing regulatory provisions. The study undertaken by British Geological Survey concludes that hydraulic fracturing is generally accompanied by micro-seismicity, and I quote, the probability of felt earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing for recovery of hydrocarbons is very small, unquote. The study also observes the improved understanding of the hazard from induced seismicity and the successful implementation of regulatory measures to mitigate the risk of induced seismicity are likely to require additional data from a number of sources, including improved monitoring capabilities. As we committed to doing as part of the moratorium, the Scottish Government has hosted a workshop with regulators. A record of that meeting is now available to view on the Scottish Government website. Finally, to ensure that the full range of environmental issues are given due consideration, a full strategic environmental assessment will also be prepared and considered before a final decision is taken. Presiding Officer, I am confident that the reports that we have published today deepen our knowledge of the evidence and shed light on the issues and choices that this industry presents. As I hope the chamber can tell from the summary of the research, one study can give a conclusive view on this industry and whether or not it has a place in Scotland's energy mix. Some will say that this research shows the economic impact is low and the risk is too great, others that the risk can be managed and a potential economic gain cannot be ignored. The reports rightly do not make recommendations on whether UOG should be admitted or not. The science and evidence informs the debate and it is now time for that debate to take place. I am able to confirm today that our consultation on unconventional oil and gas will launch on schedule early in the new year. In view of the importance of discussing unconventional oil and gas in the context of wider energy use and climate change matters, I can also confirm that the launch of the consultation will be co-ordinated with the publication of our climate change plan and the consultation on Scotland's energy strategy. The consultation, which will cover hydraulic fracturing and coal bed methane, will not simply be an opinion poll. I do not believe that that would do justice to the broad and complex range of issues that we care about and that need to be debated. The consultation will continue the process of presenting evidence, encouraging discourse and will allow the public and stakeholders to set out their views. Our consultation will give everyone who has an interest in this issue an opportunity to express their view. That is what the public and stakeholders expect and that is what we are delivering. Once the consultation closes and the results have been independently analysed and published, we will make our recommendation on the future of unconventional oil and gas and allow Parliament to vote on it, after which the Scottish Government will come to a considered judgment on the future of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland. I know that everyone in this chamber recognises the different opinions that exist on the development otherwise of unconventional oil and gas. This Government has maintained a consistently sceptical and precautionary approach throughout. In reaching a final decision as a Government and as a Parliament it is imperative that every step we take a careful, considered and evidence-based approach and that we do so alongside an informed public debate. Given the significance of the issue, that is right and proper way to proceed. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in this statement. I can only allow around 20 minutes for that and we are really tight so if you could please have fairly short questions and answers please minister. Could I ask those who wish to ask questions to press their speak buttons? I will call in Alexander Burnett to be followed by Claudia Beamish. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer and can I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. As an Aberdeenshire MSP can I firstly congratulate Colin Clark and Ian Taylor on winning their respective council by-elections in Inverrory and Banff last Thursday? No wonder, with after the raiding of our fossil fuel industry in the north-east to fund an economy missing out on fracking. Dr Stuart Patton recently said that there are a number of contradictions in the Scottish Government's energy policy and nowhere was that contradiction more evident than in this morning's Scottish Energy news where we see the cabinet secretary posing with his minister with a company that has just been awarded a quarter of a million pounds to improve the technology for onshore fracking. It is simply breathtaking. Just hours after this publication the minister can come to the chamber and consistent approach and yet still give no timescale for a decision on fracking. Scotland, industry and consumers need direction. So why has the minister once again failed to deliver and when will we get a decision? Before you get up minister can I say to use question time so I think to be an appropriate minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On the issue of the timing I'm not sure if the member was not listening indeed beforehand but I did set out that in a new year we're going to launch the consultation, public consultation. This is an extremely important issue for Scotland to debate and get right as a policy area. Unlike the UK Government we are not taking a gungho approach supporting an industry when there are significant concerns among the public and stakeholders as to the success or otherwise of this industry. We feel it is vital particularly given the concentration of population in the Midland Valley the main area where this activity may be placed if it were to go ahead that we listen to the views of communities and indeed wider stakeholders and to take soundings on the strength of the evidence that we have presented today. We're not taking it for granted that the research will not be challenged by stakeholders in the industry and we think it's important to listen something that perhaps the Conservative Party would do well to do to wider issues not just on energy policy. In regards to the support for oil and gas industry I would just indicate to Mr Burnett I hope he studies closely the economic impact that the Conservative Party has made great claim about shale gas and other technologies providing an alternative route to safety for oil and gas industry. I would leave it to Mr Burnett to judge whether those figures that are presented in the KPMG study match up to his expectations. Claudia Beamish I thank the minister for prior sight of the statement and the range of reports. It is disappointing that the Scottish Government has not today gone for a public consultation on an outright ban on onshore fracking. Especially as the minister stated on 6 October that underground coal gasification would not be part of Scotland's energy mix. As COP22 opens in Marrakesh does the minister agree with me that the climate change chance is irrefutable and indeed was before the reports were even commissioned and that our communities and for our children and grandchildren and for jobs in clean energy now and in the future we should not lock into another fossil fuel. If he does why does he not announce a public consultation on an outright ban on fracking like I have done in my ban fracking in Scotland Bill? Paul Wheelhouse Thank you, Presiding Officer. A number of issues are certainly on underground coal gasification. On reviewing the evidence it was very clear that there were significant health and safety issues present in that industry. What we have to take account, if we are taking an evidence-based approach to look at the work that we have published in advance on a platform where we would have a consultation following publication of evidence and we are maintaining our commitment to do exactly that. Others, including Claudia Beamish who I am sure will be active in participating in the Scottish Government's consultation when it happens in the new year to submit their views on that research. There may be aspects of it that are supported there may be aspects of it that are challenged. We think that it is right to put the research that we have commissioned out there, invite the public to engage in a debate and to give ultimately a Parliament a vote that we have put to Parliament. We are trying to be inclusive, including all parties in the chamber, to have the opportunity to give their verdict on our recommendation based on the evidence in the consultation and then we will take it from there. I give the member an assurance, certainly on Marrakesh, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham intends to attend the Marrakesh COP and to give the Scottish perspective on that. We take extremely seriously the impact of our actions as a country on global climate emissions and indeed the Climate Change Committee's work informs us of what their estimate is as to the climate change impact of this industry. Again, without pressing judgment on those figures I would invite others to give their comment on the research that we have published on climate change impact today. Joan McAlpine, to be followed by Myrth of Fraser. Is the minister aware of the recent Sterling University report by Professor Andrew Waterson and William Dinan on the public health implications of fracking that the evidence base for robust regulation and good industry practice is currently absent and it found multiple serious challenges surrounding locations, scale, monitoring and data deficits facing regulators overseeing onshore UGE and fracking in the UK? Paul Wheelhouse. We are certainly aware of the research that Joan McAlpine refers to and while Health Protection Scotland have looked on our behalf at the health impact information and published a report today that is a review of the primary research that has been undertaken by Health Protection Scotland and I am aware that the study that was referred to at the University of Stirling has also done a literature review looking at secondary and primary data sources. I would encourage all those who have a view whether it is to challenge the information that has been presented by Health Protection Scotland or indeed to supplement it in the case of the work that Joan McAlpine refers to to submit that research that is taking forward in January. There is an opportunity for all stakeholders to feed in and make sure that we have access to the fullest range of views and information on the subject. Martin Fraser, to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Thank you. The minister did not answer my colleague Alexander Burnett's questions. Let me try again. We know that the consultation has been published early in the new year. When will the consultation close and when will the Scottish Government review it? I think that it did try and answer Alexander Burnett's question and said that we had set out in the statement the resumption of the consultation. We are looking to do that in the four-month period initially to take the findings and produce feedback to tie in with, as I said, the climate change plan and the energy strategy that is being developed in the course of next year. We are looking to complete both those documents of the year 2017 and take on board our view as we form it on the development or otherwise of onshore oil and gas. Jackie Baillie, followed by Mark Ruskell. The minister will be aware that many people point to the economic benefits of fracking as a justification for doing it. Can I therefore ask the minister about the assessment of economic impact and draw his attention to table 1.2 in the paper? The table measures impact over 40 years and, in Scotland, in the central scenario will amount to £55 million per annum in the low scenario, £12.5 million per annum. Does the minister therefore believe that those relatively low figures justify a risk to our environment and public health? Paul Wheelhouse. As I said in my statement, I am trying to avoid giving a Government view on the figures, but I note for the record the figures that Jackie Baillie raises. I merely put it to stakeholders, including those colleagues across the chamber, to look at the balance in terms of the different factors that we have allowed today, the economic impact, the climate change impact, the health impact, the decommissioning impact, transport impact to ensure that we take a rounded view on the impact across all these issues. That is what Government has to do if we focus on one or other, that would be perhaps a false position. We need to let the people tell us which they think is more important and feed into our consultation so I recognise the figures or ones that are in the report, but I will not pass judgment on them today with apologies to Jackie Baillie. Mark Ruskell, followed by Willie Rennie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Minister, this Parliament has got a legislative duty to scrutinise the climate action plan that your own Government is currently producing. That has been delayed. It will now be out in January as you have indicated alongside the energy strategy. What is going to appear under the headline fracking in both of those documents? Will there just be a giant question mark? What are people meant to think of that? Minister, will you at least release the strategic environmental assessment ahead of the public consultation into unconventional gas in January? Will you also commit to including full liability on cleanup costs in any decision making that you come to? Paul Wheelhouse. I certainly recognise the importance of the issue from the point of view of its linkage to the climate change plan, which was Anna Cunningham's leading for the Government and the energy strategy that I will be taking forward in half of the Government, which will be published in January as well. People can look at all those documents in the round, so they can look at the consultation on unconventional gas, they can look at the energy strategy, they can look at the climate change plan. Of course, if we are able to do so as I have outlined to Murdo Fraser in the course of the year, take on board those points and the role of unconventional gas around the consultation itself. I will commit to the member. We are looking to try and take on board the findings of that consultation and take that on board in the finalised energy strategy. I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform will also be taking heed of the consultation too. Willie Rennie, followed by Angus MacDonald. Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister. I also thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement and the voluminous reports that I have to admit that I have not read them all yet. It is pretty clear that the Government is on a long journey to saying no to fracking and it is good news that today it has not given the go ahead to fracking. Following on from what Murdo Fraser asked, can he just clarify will it be the end of 2017 when we get a final conclusion and decision by this Government on this issue? Paul Wheelhouse? It is my intent as the minister responsible for the energy strategy to make sure that if it is as tall as possible and I intend this to be the case that we take on board our view of what we propose to do in relation to unconventional oil and gas in our finalised energy strategy next year. The draft is being published in parallel with the climate change plan. Clearly, the debate that we are going to have around unconventional oil and gas will have an impact, I am sure, but I cannot predict how Parliament will vote. As I said, we are going to put a recommendation to Parliament and I do not want to prejudge the view of Parliament clearly for protocol reasons but I would anticipate that we will have a lively debate in Parliament and we will then have a vote on the position and the Government will reflect on the vote of Parliament at that time. In order to answer the sedentary question that Mr Rennie has asked I will intend to do that by the end of 2017. Angus McDonnell, followed by Maurice Golden. Given the significant local interest, I am sure that the vast majority of my constituents in Falkirk East will welcome the publication of the research reports and the minister's confirmation that the full public consultation is to go ahead at the turn of the year. Can I ask the minister what waiting will the Scottish Government give to the findings of the public health impact study when it has reviewed the submissions from the consultation prior to making its final decision? Paul Wheelhouse. Clearly, health impact is an area in which there will be a lot of public interest in and alongside the other issues that I flagged up in indeed response to Jackie Baillie would make the same similar point to Angus McDonnell who I know has got a very strong interest in this issue from a constituency perspective that we need to try to put the information out there and invite communities across Scotland to give us their view on what they feel are the most important factors that we are presenting to them. Clearly, there are issues about health impact, economic impact and decommissioning impact and so forth. Both different studies are important on the right. We are not intending to assign a particular value to them but instead invite the communities of Scotland and wider stakeholders to tell us what they think are the most important things that we should take into account when forming our recommendation to Parliament and I will certainly listen very carefully to views from Falkirk as well. Maurice Golden, followed by John Mason. I thank the minister for the advance copy of the statement but does he agree, given that climate change has no borders, that Scotland could decrease global carbon emissions by reducing the requirement to import foreign fossil fuels by embracing this technology? Paul Wheelhouse. I do not sound like a broken record but I would invite Maurice Golden or anyone else who shares his view to submit to the consultation if they believe that that is an important factor. We are not prejudging the importance of any one factor, including climate change but they are clearly all important studies on the subject and enable us all to take, hopefully, a less heated but more enlightened view of the debate and make sure that we come to a considered view across Scottish society. Clearly there are issues and KPMG highlight them that the substances that can be extracted through fracking or Covid may think could be used as feedstock for Grangemouth and other petrochemical plants but then you have to think factor into that scenario where potentially there is an increase in consumption and whether that additional overall emissions or not. I would leave to members across the chamber to review the evidence and give your view as to what you think is the important message to take from that. John Mason followed by Richard Leonard. I thank the minister for his statement. Following on from the last question I mean would you agree with me that we are very concerned about our climate change targets and that by allowing fracking here that would, in all probability, increase or make it more difficult for the Scottish Government to achieve its greenhouse gas emissions targets. Paul Wheelhouse. The study that has been produced by the Committee on Climate Change as I alluded to in my statement gives some estimates as to the potential scenarios depending on the lit degree of regulation and the degree of extraction that is undertaken as to the climate change impact that could be felt across Scotland. Clearly, in the way that Scotland's legislative targets for climate change have been established without sexual targets, if there is an increase in emissions in one part of the economy that then has to be borne across the rest of the economy and so we are not prejudging how that would be dealt with if that was to happen through the economy to meet our existing climate change targets and indeed to increase our ambition in climate change in due course we would have to find some form of mitigating those emissions providing officer and through that something that the Government would have to take into account and make a recommendation to Parliament. Richard Leonard. Followed by Evan McKee. Deputy Presiding Officer, can I recap then that once the consultation closes the results will be independently analysed by whom we know not. The Government will make a recommendation on fracking and I quote allow Parliament to vote on it which once again the Government may or may not pay any attention to whatsoever. Can the minister tell us why we should believe his Government to accept Parliament's verdict next time when it didn't accept it last time and will he confirm that none of this will be concluded in time for the people going to the polls in next May's local elections? Without seeking to find division with the Labour Party on this issue I think that last point just shows the motivation of the member is more interested in local government elections than getting the decision right. I invite Mr Leonard to listen here. We want to get the decision right for the people of Scotland and in public interest and we will be listening to Mr Leonard and others who submit to the consultation. The reason why you can be confident as a member of this chamber that we will do exactly what we have said and bring the issue to Parliament to vote on and reflect on is because we have kept promise in every step of the way on this process so far. We gave a commitment that we would have the gaps identifying the expert scientific panels study. We have given a commitment to undertake a consultation with the public which we are publishing details of today and will do. I give a commitment to the member and to the chamber that we will bring the issue back to the Parliament for a vote and we will be listening to the view of Parliament at that time. Ivan McKee. I would minister agree that the negative impacts of fracking affect all parts of Scotland not just those areas where shale reserves are located. As a number of members have indicated, whether it is climate change or a wider impact on the Scottish economy that is positive or negative clearly has an impact not just on the middle and valley straddling the central belt of Scotland but also on the wider communities of Scotland. It is an important issue, whether it is from the point of view of our contribution to our energy mix or to our economic development but also to climate change impact and as I have said in response to questions that it would have to be born if there were additional emissions it would have to be born by the whole economy which of course is distributed across the whole of the country. I have to say here we are under 20 minutes and we are finished. I am quite stunned. No, I think it was excellent. The brevity was amazing. I shall give a few moments for people to change seats and then we will move on to the next item of business.