 Itima of Business, which is a statement by Paul Wheelhouse on unconventional oil and gas. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions until then. I would encourage all members who wish to ask a question to press their request to sweet buttons now. I call on Paul Wheelhouse. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This Government has consistently taken a cautious evidence-led approach to considering the potential exploitation of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland. As part of this approach, we have ensured stakeholders and the people of Scotland have had the opportunity to participate in the decision making process in an open, inclusive and transparent way. Indeed, the Scottish Government has now undertaken one of the most far-reaching investigations into unconventional oil and gas of any Government, including a four-month public consultation that concluded in May. Our consultation, Talking Fracking, embodied the Scottish Government's commitment to the full participation of local communities and stakeholders and decisions that matter to them and impact upon them. As has been clear throughout this process, there are deeply held and sincere views on all sides of this debate, including in this chamber. Presiding Officer, today I wish to update the chamber on the findings of our consultation. I will also set out this Government's preferred position on the future of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland, based on the findings of our consultation and the extensive evidence that we have collated. As I have previously stated, this preferred position will be brought to this chamber for a full parliamentary debate and vote, and we propose that this happens shortly after recess. As with our previous announcement on underground coal gasification on 6 October 2016 and in line with our statutory responsibilities, a strategic environmental assessment will be commissioned following the parliamentary vote to assess the impact of the Scottish Government's position prior to its finalisation. Before I update the chamber on the consultation findings, it is important to set the context for this decision. A policy decision on unconventional oil and gas in Scotland does not exist in isolation. It must be viewed within the context of our longer-term ambitions for energy in the environment, manufacturing and the Scottish economy more generally and, of course, our climate change responsibilities. The main product from unconventional oil and gas reserves is natural gas, which is our principal source of energy for heating. Shale deposits may also contain natural gas liquids such as ethane. Those important raw materials for our chemical and manufacturing industries are used in a wide range of high-value products including plastics, detergents and clothing. This Government recognises that gas will be an important part of Scotland's energy mix for the foreseeable future. Access to a secure and affordable supply of energy and raw materials is fundamental to the competitiveness and productivity of the Scottish business and industry. A strong and vibrant domestic offshore oil and gas industry can play a positive role in our future energy system and is entirely consistent with encouraging a stable managed transition to a low-carbon economy. Achieving our vision for energy is crucial to our efforts to tackle fuel poverty and prevent the damaging effects of climate change as part of the global community's fight to limit global temperature rises to below 2 °C, while pursuing efforts towards 1.5 °C. In addition to support for our manufacturing sectors, the programme for government includes a commitment to the introduction of a new climate change bill that will set even more ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This Government's view is that we have a moral responsibility to tackle climate change and an economic responsibility to prepare Scotland for new low-carbon opportunities. Our comprehensive public consultation provided an opportunity for individuals, local communities, industry, academics and stakeholders to comment on and shape this policy decision. We have today published a full analysis of the consultation responses. The consultation received 60,535 valid responses, the second largest response to a Scottish Government consultation and a clear validation of our participative approach. Of those responses, 52,110 or 86 per cent were campaign responses or petitions, and 8,425 or 14 per cent took the form of substantive responses. Of those responses in Scotland providing a substantive response and a postcode, nearly two thirds, 4,151, lived in one of 13 local authority areas that are identified as potentially having significant shale oil and gas reserves or coal bed methane. The consultation was not an opinion poll, that simply wouldn't do justice to the range of issues that need to be discussed and considered. However, it was clear that the overwhelming majority of respondents were opposed to the development of unconventional oil and gas industry in Scotland. Overall, approximately 99 per cent of the responses were opposed to fracking and fewer than one per cent were in favour. Those opposed to fracking repeatedly emphasised the potential for significant, long-lasting negative impacts on communities, health, environment and climate, expressed scepticism about the ability of regulation to mitigate negative impacts and were unconvinced about the value of any economic benefit or the contribution of unconventional oil and gas to Scotland's energy mix. Alternative views were received, some respondents were either supportive of an unconventional oil and gas industry developing in Scotland or did not feel it was possible to come to a view on the available evidence. Those in favour of an unconventional oil and gas industry emphasised the potential benefits that they perceived for the economy, for communities, for the climate and for Scotland's energy supply and said that the risks associated with unconventional oil and gas extraction were no greater than those associated with any other industry. They argued that the development of a strong and robust regulatory framework could mitigate any adverse impacts. Reaching a decision on unconventional oil and gas is the culmination of a careful and comprehensive period of evidence gathering. We have not taken the process or the decision lightly. At each stage, we have created opportunities for discourse and debate, and I would hope that everyone in this chamber, regardless of their views on the subject, would acknowledge the opportunities for meaningful participation that we have created. I want to now set out some more of the considerations that have guided my decision. In reviewing the research findings, I have particular concerns over the insufficiency of epidemiological evidence on health impacts, highlighted by Health Protection Scotland. I also note the conclusion of the Committee on Climate Change, our advisers on statutory targets. We concluded that unconventional oil and gas extraction in Scotland would make meeting our existing climate change targets more challenging. Indeed, as the committee states in its report, in order to be compatible with the Scottish climate change targets, emissions from production of unconventional oil and gas would require to be offset through reductions in emissions elsewhere in the Scottish economy. Given the scale of the challenge that we already face, that would be no easy task. I also note that KPMG concluded in the report on the economic impact of an unconventional oil and gas industry in Scotland that, under its central development scenario, just not 0.1 per cent annually would, on average, be added to Scottish GDP shoes fracking given the go-ahead. I have also been mindful of the important reality that the potential activity associated with an unconventional oil and gas industry would be concentrated in and around former coal fields and oil-shell fields in the central belt, which are among the most densely populated areas of Scotland. Our consultation demonstrated that communities across Scotland, particularly in areas where developments could take place, have yet to be convinced that there is a strong enough case of national economic importance when balance against the risk of disruption they anticipate on matters such as transport impacts, risk of pollution and impacts on their general health and wellbeing. I am sure that an unconventional oil and gas industry would work to the highest environmental and health and safety standards. It is our responsibility as a Government to make a decision that we believe is in the best interest of the people of this country as a whole. We must be confident that the choices that we make will not compromise health and safety or damage the environment in which we live. Having considered this matter in considerable detail, it is also our view that the outcome of our public engagement shows that, in those communities that would be most affected, there is no social licence for unconventional oil and gas to be taken forward at this time. The research that we have conducted does not provide a strong enough basis from which to adequately address those communities' concerns. Taking all of this into account and balancing the interests of the environment, our economy, public health and public opinion, I can confirm that the conclusion of the Scottish Government is that we will not support the development of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland. To put that position into immediate effect, we have today written to local authorities across Scotland to make clear that the directions that gave effect to the moratorium will remain in place indefinitely. That action means that we will use planning powers to ensure that any unconventional oil and gas applications are considered in line with our position of not supporting unconventional oil and gas. Let me be clear that the action is sufficient to effectively ban the development of unconventional oil and gas extraction in Scotland. The decision that I am announcing today means that fracking cannot and will not take place in Scotland. My comments today relate to the use of planning powers. Of course, this Parliament awaits the transfer of licensing powers promised by the UK Government and legislated for in the Scotland Act 2016. The commencement order for those powers was expected in February this year but has yet to be progressed by the UK Government. This licensing regime currently takes place under an EU hydrocarbons licensing framework. We are concerned that those powers appear in the list provided by the UK Government of areas where it may re-appropriate as a result of Brexit. That would be unacceptable. I have therefore also written today to Secretary of State Greg Clark setting out our position on the future of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland to seek assurances that no such power grab will take place and that powers promised will be transferred to the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible. However, while that is important, I want to make crystal clear today that using our planning powers in the way that I have set out allows us to deliver our position no matter what Westminster decides. Presiding Officer, I am aware that there is a proposal for a member's bill on this issue from Claudia Beamish. The use of planning powers is an effective and indeed much quicker way to deliver our policy objective. As with our actions on nuclear power stations, legislation is therefore not necessary. In closing, I acknowledge that Scotland's chemical industry has conveyed strong views on the potential benefits of shale in Scottish industry. I want to be clear that notwithstanding our position on unconventional oil and gas in Scotland, our support for Scotland's industrial base and manufacturing sector is unwavering. Manufacturing in the chemicals industry continues to play a crucial role in the Scottish economy and we understand that support of fiscal regime, affordable energy, access to the right skills and good infrastructure are all essential to future success. That is why this Government will continue to support industry in a range of different ways in the months and years to come. At the outset of devolution, one of the principal aims of this Parliament was to bring decision-making closer to those most affected. That ethos has underpinned our approach to reaching a decision not to support the development of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland. Taking full account of the available evidence and strength of public opinion today, my judgment is that Scotland should say no to fracking. This position will be reflected in our finalised energy strategy, which we will publish this December. The next step in this process will be for the Scottish Government to table a motion for debate and allow Parliament to vote on whether or not to support our carefully considered and robust position on unconventional oil and gas. I want to conclude by thanking everyone who has contributed to this process. It is right that this Government saw expert independent scientific advice and that we took the time needed to seek the views of the people of Scotland. The people have spoken, and the time has come to move on. Such an important decision was made by the cabinet. If that is the case, why did the cabinet secretary not make that statement to Parliament and take questions? Is it because the cabinet secretary doesn't believe a single word that is put in that document? Yes. Those decisions are a matter for the Government and an exercise of collective responsibility. They are not a matter for the chair or for Parliament to stand in order. Dean Lockhart, I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. After years of indecision, the SNP has finally made its choice in relation to fracking, and yet again Scotland's economy is left behind. Time and again, independent assessments have shown the significant benefit that fracking could bring to Scotland's economy. Up to £4.6 billion in additional GVA could be generated by this industry, as well as thousands of highly skilled jobs across Scotland. That much-needed economic boost and those jobs will now be created outside of Scotland, thanks to the SNP. Can the minister therefore explain, first, what estimates has his Government made of the economic impact of its decision today and how many potential high-skilled jobs will no longer be created here in Scotland? Secondly, the minister said that the Government has decided to ban fracking following an evidence-led approach. However, the Scottish Government's own expert scientific panel concluded, and I quote, the technology exists to allow the safe extraction of reserves subject to robust regulation being in place. If this ban on fracking is not based on an economic assessment and is not based on expert evidence on safety, does the minister agree with leading scientific commentators across Scotland that banning fracking is all about the politics and not about the science? First, as the minister has led the process all the way through the consultation, I am here to answer for that process. In response to Mr Lockhart's points that he makes, I stress a number of things. First of all, that, unlike the UK Government, which has plowed ahead with a gungho attitude to the development of unconventional oil and gas activities in England, with the consequent upset that is caused to communities in Lancashire and elsewhere and has not thought at all about the social licence involved with such a new industry in an area of densely populated England. We have taken a responsible view to the development of our approach to unconventional oil and gas. We have listened to scientific evidence. Mr Lockhart says that we do not have evidence of the economic impact. I would direct him to read the KPMG study that shows quite clearly what a leading economic analyst believes is the economic impact under three different scenarios. On the central scenario, as I set out in my statement just moments ago, it would amount to not 0.1 per cent of additional GDP for the Scottish economy against which many local communities in the 13 local authorities are affected suggested that there would potentially negative impacts on local industries such as agriculture and tourism. Mr Lockhart may not want to listen to the people of Scotland in communities that are most affected by unconventional oil and gas, but this Government is listening to people of Scotland in those areas and we are banning unconventional oil and gas in Scotland as a consequence. Can our members keep their comments and maybe press their request to speak buttons if they wish to ask a question? Claudia Beamish to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the price of the statement on onshore fracking. Labour has long argued that we do not need another fossil fuel. We need to develop forms of renewable energy with unionised and well-paid jobs. Let's be clear that this announcement is a result of communities and Labour's pressure. Specifically, my proposal to change the law to ban fracking in Scotland is well-developed. Extending the moratorium indefinitely, while welcome, is not as strong as a full legal ban and could be overturned at any point at the whim of a future minister. Those proposals do not go far enough and do not offer the protection that my bill would. Will the minister work with me to ensure a full legal ban to protect communities, the environment and future generations across Scotland? First, I recognise that Claudia Beamish has taken a long-standing interest in this issue, but I say gently to her that we have put in place today through the measures that have outlined an effective immediate ban on unconventional oil and gas activities in Scotland of a similar nature to that, which we have put in place for new nuclear power stations. That is important. We are able to much more expeditiously put into effect control on this activity, which I have done today through writing to Greg Clark in respect of setting out a position in the Scottish Government on unconventional oil and gas, and the chief planning officer has written to all 32 local authority directors of planning to update them on the position that I have outlined to the chamber today. I would just say merely to Claudia Beamish that we do not have licensing powers that have not yet been transferred to the Scottish Parliament, but the approach that I have outlined today helps us to achieve the objective that she seeks, which is to control this activity. Richard Dixon from Friends of the Earth has already treated, I understand, to say that this is an upgrading of moratorium to a ban. If other stakeholders are able to understand the impact of this policy, I would encourage Claudia Beamish to support us when the debate comes following recess. Mark Ruskell to be followed by Lee MacArthur. Mark Ruskell, I welcome this statement to Parliament today. It shows that the Scottish Government has listened to communities and that the Government has signalled its intention to ban. However, we do not have a ban in front of us. The Scottish Government today has merely extended its current moratorium, a moratorium that is legally shaky and open to challenge by large companies such as Ineos. When will the Scottish Government introduce a permanent ban by using Scottish planning policy, by using environmental regulations and licensing powers, which do not require primary legislation? I apologise, Presiding Officer. I am taking it back because I do not think that Mark Ruskell I respect him greatly, but I do not think that he has listened to what I have said in my statement. We have put in place using Scottish planning policy an immediate ban on unconventional oil and gas activities in Scotland. We will seek the Parliament's endorsement for that position when we hopefully are able to hold the debate following recess and will seek support from Mark Ruskell and his colleagues and other colleagues across the chamber for the position that we have set out. We believe that the position that we have set out is robust and it is based on an evidence-based approach that we have taken throughout. We have listened to all sides and we have concluded in a number of key areas that we are unsatisfied based on the scientific evidence and, indeed, the very strong views of communities in the 13 years that are affected and more widely in Scotland that this activity should not happen. I give reassurance that I have made, tried to make crystal clear in my statement, that this is an effective ban on unconventional oil and gas activities in Scotland and we very much regard it as being a robust process that we have gone through. I thank the minister for early sight of his statement and confirm that Scottish Liberal Democrats will warmly welcome the decision, albeit via the scenic group to effectively ban fracking in Scotland. Does the minister agree that, while opening up a new front of carbon-based fuels and energy production, we do nothing to help us to meet our climate commitments? Much more still needs to be done if we are to ensure the necessary mix of renewables and particularly storage technology that our economy and society will require over the coming decades. What plans does he have in that regard, building on the strong signal that he has sent out by today's statement? I welcome Liam McArthur's positive remarks about the decision that we have taken today, although I would describe a scenic route as being one that involves the people of Scotland and key stakeholders in reaching what I regard as a considered position and a robust one. On his point about renewables and storage, I recognise that that is a very strong part of where we want to go in this country. We are continuing to press UK ministers, as I know that Mr McArthur is aware, for supportive decisions around remote island wind projects on the islands and, indeed, to enter connection between the islands and the mainland and, in terms of investment in pump-tider storage and other forms of grid-scale storage to allow us to have a truly sustainable energy future for Scotland. I want to say more on that, Presiding Officer, about the way of time today. We will, of course, put full detail into our finalised energy strategy, which we will publish in December, and I hope that it will be one that Mr McArthur and his colleagues can support. Angus MacDonald will be followed by John Scott. I warmly welcome the minister's announcement this afternoon, as will the majority of my constituents in Falkirk East. I also welcome the cautious evidence-led approach taken by the Scottish Government. Given that fracking is to be effectively banned, I subject, of course, to the forthcoming debate and vote in Parliament, which the ban will give residents throughout central Scotland peace of mind, can the minister give me an assurance that the Government will remain focused on ensuring that industry and grange myth is supported and encouraged, while bearing in mind that industry and grange myth sits cheek by joil with the 18,000 residents of the port, not to mention the wider population in Falkirk district? I certainly recognise the points that Mr MacDonald has raised about the importance of listening to community views in his area in Falkirk, but also bearing in mind the important future for the chemical industry in Scotland. Regardless of our position—I have tried to make clear in the statement—on conventional oil and gas in Scotland, our support for Scotland's industrial base and manufacturing is unwavering. Manufacturing in industry continued to play a crucial role in the Scottish economy, as I have set out. We understand that, as I said in my statement, the support of fiscal regime costs of energy, access to right skills and improving the infrastructure for the sector are all essential for the sector to remain competitive. We will work with UK Government colleagues in respect of the industrial strategy and making sure that any sector deals are supportive investment in Scotland. However, we have taken steps already to support energy-intensive industries in terms of maintaining the competitiveness of energy costs. I give the member a reassurance that we will work very closely with key employers in his constituency. I want to finish on reflecting the fact that there are 393 substantive responses from people in Falkirk, in addition to petition and campaign responses. Mr MacDonald can be very comforted that his constituents played an active role in submitting to the consultation. The announcement of a ban today is a massive slap in the face to Scottish academia, engineers, geologists, industry experts and many more highly skilled individuals who have been dealt a heavy blow here today. In a can do Scotland, known worldwide for its pioneering technologies safely and responsibility, what kind of message does the cabinet secretary think he is sending out to those in those areas of academia and scientific research and those who work in the industry and whose jobs have now been put at risk, as well as those who could have been attracted to Scotland to work in this new industry? I would say to John Scott that, in response to his points, we have taken a cautious and evidence-based approach to this issue. UK Government pressed on in a gungho fashion, caring not for the views of communities and areas that are affected by unconventional oil and gas. We have taken a different approach. We have listened to industry and set out today the pros and cons of unconventional oil and gas and the fact that we have had to take a balanced decision based on looking at the needs of our environment, our important commitments around climate change and, indeed, the views of local communities. However, we are very mindful of the impact of all decisions that the Government takes on business, and we have taken very seriously the views that are being represented by business. He characterises our approach to this as being irresponsible. I would suggest that we have done anything but being irresponsible. We have taken a very responsible approach to this issue. We have considered and listened to that. We have reflected that 13 areas of the country that are most likely to be involved in unconventional oil and gas activity do not support that activity. It is very important that the views of the people of Scotland are taken into account. I would encourage Mr Scott, on behalf of his constituents, who are in an area of the country that is also under the Great Midland Valley, to consider carefully his remarks today. Julian Martin will be followed by Clare Baker. What is the clear statement of intent when it comes to unconventional oil and gas practices in Scotland, looking at the conventional practices of our domestic oil and gas industry, of great importance to the people in my area? What continuing support would the Scottish Government give to the sector to get people into work? Julian Martin raises a very important point. I have referred to it in my statement, but we strongly support the oil and gas industry in its offshore activities. We have jointly funded with the UK Government £180 million oil and gas technology centre, and the innovation hub for that centre was launched yesterday by the First Minister. We have put in place the energy jobs task force, which has focused on improving the resilience of oil and gas companies both in the production sector and the supply chain. We have invested up to £10 million in R&D support to help oil and gas supply chain companies to improve their performance and to remain competitive. We have helped those oil and gas industry workers who are affected by redundancy through their transition training fund, with £12 million of support, helping more than 2,400 individuals directly and providing in the further 755 places through two procurement rounds. Our energy strategy makes clear that there is a long-term role for the sector, even though we are embarked on an ambitious low-carbon trajectory. I very much add my own support and those of my colleagues to the oil and gas industry. This Government has been strong champions of the sector in Scotland, and you can judge us on our record in that respect. Clare Baker, to be followed by Graeme Dey. I have been campaigning for action against fracking across my regions since 2012, and I have taken opportunities to raise my constituents' concerns in the chamber, so thank you to the Presiding Officer for calling me. The minister spoke about the need for a strategic environmental assessment before the finalisation of the decision. Can he tell the chamber when he expects this to be completed? The member raised an important point, because any key decisions that that requires under the 2005 act were required to provide a strategic environmental assessment, and we will embark on that as soon as we possibly can. It is likely to overlap the production of the final energy strategy in December, but we will obviously reflect that position that is not yet being finalised in the final energy strategy when we publish it. However, it is an important process. It may take many months to consult widely with industry and to key stakeholders, but I assure the member that we will move on it as fast as we possibly can. I recognise her long-standing interest in this issue and hope that she welcomes the announcement today. The Scottish Government has consistently stated that, unless it could be proved beyond any doubt that there was no risk to health, communities or the environment from fracking, then such activity would not take place in Scotland. Could the minister provide some clarity on where in reaching this very welcome decision it was determined that risks remained? The key areas that I have summarised in my statement, but to give more detail around climate emissions, we obviously have a very stringent, legally binding annual statutory targets on climate change, which are, as I am sure the member is well aware, difficult enough to meet. We are setting out our plans through the climate change plan to deliver those up to 2032. The KPMG study indicated that in the central production scenario, depending on the degree of regulation, and assuming that there would be a good level of regulation by our outstanding environmental agencies such as SEPA, between 0.4 megatons of sea or 2 or to 0.6 megatons of sea or 2 emissions might be expected annually in addition to those emissions that we have already produced in the Scottish economy. In addition, health impacts, there was inconclusive data on the evidence on long-term epidemiological impacts of the new industry. In terms of communities, as I have set out, there was a very strong sentiment that there was a lack of a social licence to take forward the industry at this time, and that has led us to put in place the position that I have outlined today. Jamie Greene fell by Bruce Crawford. The minister talks about social licence, but this Government spent a decade overturning local decisions on windfarms. There was no social licence for that, but it was deemed in the national interest. Now, with a budget just weeks away, it is buckling under political pressure and forfeiting the economic boost that fracking might bring Scotland. Is this the new way of doing government, where national policy is led by opinion polls rather than economic and scientific evidence? Even evidence, its own panel gave them. Scotland needs a government that does the right thing, not the populist thing. Presiding Officer, that was interesting to read from our colleagues across the Conservative benches. It is ironic, given that the remarks have just been made, that Michael Gove in his speech to the Conservative Congress—I do not normally pay attention to those things, but it was drawn to my attention—that Michael Gove said that the Conservative party, indeed, are instinctive defenders of beauty in the landscape protectors of wildlife. Friends of the earth, I am sure that Richard Dixon might disagree with that. The first and still most ambitious green party in this country is a Conservative party, I beg to differ. He went on to say that chances of secure a special prize, a green Brexit, I thought there was a red, white and blue Brexit that Theresa May was wanting. In all sincerity, we take very seriously the concerns of communities in regards to windfarm applications. As the member should know, planning decisions are taken in response to such applications in a craze-eyed additional process. Each application is judged on its merits and is often informed by the very expert opinion of reporters in the DPEA. Those are not political decisions that he characterises. We take very sincerely our responsibilities to communities and we have reformed Scottish planning policy in the lifetime of this Government to take greater account of cumulative impact and protect key landscapes such as the national scenic areas and national parks. I do not agree with the premise of Mr Greene's remarks and I would say that we stand on our record in terms of renewable energy, which is driving economic growth, sustainable low-carbon economic growth in this country and something that is contributing strongly to the UK Government's own targets for renewable energy. Bruce Crawford Thank you, Presiding Officer. I say a very much welcome the ban that is announced by the Government today. This could not have been an easy decision making process for the minister and I recognise his courage in taking this step. Can I ask the Scottish Government, through its consideration of unconventional oil and gas extraction, how it takes into account public opinion in Scotland, including in particular the concerns of those in my constituency of Stirling? I cannot wait to read the Conservative party's Dean Lockhart's pro-fracking comments in the Stirling Observer. John Swinney Minister, I certainly will enjoy reading the reaction to Mr Lockhart's remarks in the Stirling Observer. Mr Crawford makes a very important point. As a very assidious constituency member, I know that he will be aware that we issued an open inclusive consultation over a period of four months' ending in May, as I outlined in my statement. We tried to ensure, as best we possibly could, that as many individuals could take part, we launched a dedicated many website to host all the material for the consultation. We directed people to PACs, which could be used for local community groups to have local meetings. I am delighted that more than 180 community organisations took part in the consultation. Many of them were community councils and areas that were affected, which reflect very well in the Parliament in terms of our engagement with the communities of Scotland on the issue. I can say to the member that more than 200 substantive responses were received from residents in the Stirling area. In addition, as I said to Mr MacDonald, to those who took part in partitions and the campaign email campaigns. I believe that residents in Stirling were actively involved, and I am very much welcome and thank them for their participation. I thank Emma Harper and Donald Cameron and other members who may wish to have been called. That concludes the statement. There will be another chance to discuss it in the immediate future. We will now move on to a statement in education. I will take a few moments to change seats.