Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Official Report 773KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

---

Unconventional Gas Exploration

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the reported increase in unconventional gas exploration. (S4T-00160)

The Scottish Government believes that Scotland needs a diverse energy portfolio to aid resilience and maintain security of our supply. Unconventional gas offers potential as another source of natural gas, but it is essential that unconventional gas exploration and extraction are done safely and responsibly with due regard to the environment.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has recently produced guidance to cover its regulatory roles in relation to coal-bed methane and shale gas. We will continue to work with the United Kingdom Government and SEPA to ensure that there is a robust regulatory regime in Scotland in relation to unconventional gas exploration and to provide clarity for industry, planning authorities and communities.

The minister will be aware of the reports in the media at the weekend on concerns about the safety and environmental impact of unconventional gas extraction and, in particular, fracking. It is clear from responses that I have received from local authorities that there is widespread confusion over what is needed by way of permissions or new licensing if, for example, there is a move from conventional extraction to fracking or from coal-bed methane extraction to shale gas extraction. There is also evidence that the use of delegated decision making is widespread.

There is a risk that fracking will come into Scotland under the radar, with local communities not being fully consulted on or involved in decision making. Does the minister accept that the regulatory regime is not robust enough and that it lacks local accountability and scrutiny? In the light of the expected lifting of the UK moratorium, will the Scottish Government introduce national guidelines as a matter of urgency?

With respect to the member, I do not agree that such confusion exists. It has been made very clear indeed that there is a robust regulatory regime in place, the nature of which has been made clear on numerous occasions.

I repeat that the licensing of the exploration and development of shale gas and coal-bed methane is a reserved matter for the UK. A petroleum exploration and development licence—PEDL—is required. Such licences are issued by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. Following that process, planning applications to move into the production phase require planning permissions gained through local authority planning processes. Given their appeal obligations, Scottish ministers must not and cannot comment on live individual planning applications.

Therefore, there is a clear regime for obtaining necessary permissions before anything can happen. Moreover, I am not aware of any application for fracking in Scotland.

The minister’s response is disappointing. I assure him that, in the discussions that I have had with local authorities, communities, environmental campaigners and the industry, concern has been expressed that there are gaps and uncertainties in the regulatory regime around what is a new energy source. I am quite happy to share the correspondence that I have received with the minister.

There is a desperate need for clarity, transparency and robust scrutiny if progress is to be made with unconventional gas. The regulatory regime is cluttered and confusing. It is extremely difficult for communities to get involved. Elected representatives are being marginalised.

Can we have another question, Ms Baker?

The situation is unacceptable. Does the minister not accept that there is a need for greater community involvement?

I am sorry to disappoint the member once again, but I am afraid that I just do not agree with any of that. I think that there is total clarity. Above all, the approach that we take on this matter, as on so many others, must be based strongly on evidence. It is on evidence that we take our decisions in relation to energy policy.

The minister may be aware that there is an application for unconventional gas exploration in my area and in some other members’ areas in the Mid Scotland and Fife and Central Scotland regions. Does he think that, similar to what has happened with wind farms and other renewables, where some of the benefit is retained in the community, those who intend to develop unconventional gas exploration facilities—in our case, coal-bed methane, not fracking—should, before such developments get the go-ahead, consider strongly contributing to the local community as well as extracting the material?

That is a sensible question. I agree entirely that it makes good sense for all those who propose to proceed with energy projects to consult fully and in detail the local authority and the local community. I commend that approach in respect of the case that Mr Crawford rightly raises.

Recently, in Moodiesburn in my constituency, an unconventional gas exploration planning application was withdrawn following significant public objections. In light of the recent press reports, will the Scottish Government give any reassurance that gas extraction will not happen in Moodiesburn against the community’s wishes?

I cannot give assurance in respect of applications that have not been submitted. I am happy to receive details of the case to which the member refers, but it strikes me that, if the application has been withdrawn, there will be no gas extraction.

There is a lack of clarity on how local planners are supposed to interpret the aspects of the SEPA guidelines that have to do with the climate change impact of adding to our stocks of fossil fuels. The minister asked about the evidence. Is it not clear that the evidence is absolutely robust that the world has dramatically more stocks of known, conventional fossil fuels than we can afford to burn if we are remotely serious about our climate change objectives?

I doubt that there will be a meeting of minds between me and Mr Harvie on that matter. We will consider carefully any impact on emissions from the burning and extraction of shale gas and coal-bed methane, as we do with all other energy applications.

Petroleum exploration and development licence 133, issued by the UK Government, covers part of my constituency. As we have also heard, it has received some media attention over the weekend. What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that SEPA monitors the consented water discharge points regularly?

I thank Mr MacDonald for that question. I am happy to look into the specific detail. I have not looked at the case in detail, so I do not want to comment without knowing all the facts.

However, for the benefit of all members, many of whom have an interest in the topic, I say that SEPA is to be commended for introducing guidance proactively. Anyone who studies that guidance, as I have done, will see that it is a considerable aid indeed to everyone who has to interpret such matters, whether local authorities or others.

I am indebted to SEPA for its approach, but I will correspond with Angus MacDonald or meet him if he wishes to discuss the particular case.

One of the key issues that people have been raising is how the different regulatory regimes join up. In the context of planning and the climate change obligations, is there not an argument in favour of the precautionary principle, particularly in view of the potential of methane escaping during any such works and having severe climate implications, given that it is significantly more dangerous than CO2?

Sarah Boyack expresses a legitimate view. I suggest that her espousal of the precautionary principle should be considered in the light of the evidence on the matter. Because unconventional gas extraction has not yet taken place in Scotland—at least, not to a significant extent or recently—it is essential that we proceed on the basis of evidence rather than any other approach based on what people think may be the facts. I hope that all other members—even Mr Harvie, who is shaking his head at this point—will agree that that alone is the correct approach on this important matter.

---

Jobcentre Plus (Work Experience)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the Jobcentre Plus system of encouraging work experience is having on its policies that support people into paid employment. (S4T-00162)

As the Parliament knows, the Scottish Government does not duplicate services for which the United Kingdom Government has the responsibility and resources to provide. Therefore, there is no direct impact on the Scottish Government’s policies to support young people into work. Indeed, we are trying to make Department for Work and Pensions and Scottish Government policies work coherently and effectively in the interests of young unemployed people.

The Scottish Government recognises that periods of work experience can be highly valuable to improving the employability and skills of young people, but we have been clear with the DWP that work experience schemes should in no way exploit those who take them up. We are supportive of voluntary, non-sanction based work experience opportunities that do not substitute substantive jobs and which give young people valuable experiences that help them to move towards employment. Clearly, we are not supportive of employers who use work experience as a form of cheap—or, indeed, free—labour.

As the minister said, work experience is clearly a very good thing. However, the Sunday Mail indicated that Jobcentre Plus managers are under pressure to encourage employers to turn paid vacancies into unpaid work experience. Can the minister tell us whether there are any estimates of the number of people filling real jobs in Scotland under the guise of work experience? Will the Scottish Government make urgent representations to Westminster regarding that practice?

I am aware of the article that appeared in the Sunday Mail and an article that appeared in the Daily Record last week. Should the allegations be true, Mr Mason is right that the practice would be scandalous, but such serious allegations need to be investigated and the DWP must be given the opportunity to respond. Therefore, I have today written to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, to seek an urgent investigation into the allegations. I will of course be happy to provide Parliament with details of his response when I receive it.

If the allegations were found to be true, the situation would be scandalous, but it would be difficult to estimate how many work experience placements to date have displaced real job opportunities.

I am grateful that the minister has already written to the Westminster Government; that is excellent. Does she agree that, if the allegations are true, it is exploitation of people in Scotland who are looking for real work? Does she also agree that Jobcentre Plus and the DWP should be on the side of job applicants if there are unscrupulous employers out there? Can the Scottish Government do anything to offer such protection if the DWP will not? Finally, does the minister agree that Westminster’s record on running the DWP has been very poor and that that is another disadvantage of Scotland remaining in the UK?

I believe that everybody should be on the side of those who are seeking work. I have a strong belief in the value of work experience for young people, but—as I have already said—such placements must be voluntary and of a high quality, and they must support the young person’s move towards and into employment. Employers are key partners in that regard, and we are clearly opposed to any form of exploitation.

Earlier this year, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development published a charter and guide for employers on work experience. It is a good-quality guide and it is very clear that work experience should not be used to fill job vacancies. I encourage every employer to apply the guidance that is contained in the document.

On a personal note, from my engagement with DWP staff I think that they work hard to try to deliver for unemployed people in very difficult circumstances. However, I am also clear that, where services impact on the lives of people in Scotland, the responsibility for those services should lie with this Parliament and no other.

I remember being quite struck when the Minister for Youth Employment said that she was relaxed about unpaid work experience. I think that that was said in response to an intervention by Patrick Harvie in a debate last year.

The minister says that she wants voluntary and high-quality work experience. Will she consider a time limit on work experience? It is certainly my experience that work experience often morphs into an unpaid job. We need to understand the difference between work experience and paid employment.

I am surprised that Miss Dugdale would find me relaxed about anything. I assure her that I am not relaxed by instinct.

I will clarify what I said. It was actually a journalist who asked me not about a DWP scheme with sanctions but about the principle of work experience, and I said to him that I thought that work experience could make a positive contribution. In that regard, I was relaxed about it. In providing a comment to that journalist, I was not providing—

Yes, but can we get the answer to Miss Dugdale’s question, please?

Yes, indeed. I simply thought that it was important to clarify the point.

There is an issue about time limits. If we believe in the principles that the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has set out, work experience should be focused on and tailored to the needs of young people, it has to enable them to progress towards and into work, and there should be clear boundaries. We cannot be prescriptive about every work experience scheme, but I would have concerns if work experience continued for protracted periods. I am therefore minded to support time-limited work experience, although flexibility is needed in working with individuals to meet their and employers’ needs.

---

Creative Scotland (Severance Package for Chief Executive)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide details of the severance package agreed with the chief executive of Creative Scotland, Andrew Dixon, in light of his announcement that he is to leave the organisation in January 2013. (S4T-00158)

No, as that is a matter for the board of Creative Scotland, which employs the chief executive.

I am very disappointed to hear that. I am not quite sure why the Scottish Government should be complicit in a cover-up of the expenditure of considerable sums of public money.

In considering her answer to my previous question, the cabinet secretary should acknowledge that we have got into a situation in which the year of creative Scotland has turned into the year of destructive—or self-destructive—Scotland. Given that she wrote to the board of Creative Scotland prior to Mr Dixon’s announcement to outline her concerns in clear terms, given the broad criticism from the artistic community over recent months of Creative Scotland’s conduct and policies, and given the acknowledgement by the board of Creative Scotland of serious failings in its organisation and management, does the cabinet secretary think that the departure of one man is a sufficient response?

Creative Scotland’s accounts will be published next year, and there will clearly be disclosure of the package as part of those accounts. Such accounts are regularly published after the financial year ends on 31 March.

The agreement with Mr Dixon is a confidential matter, and the board has been decisive in its actions. It has issued a statement, which was published on Friday. I am not sure whether the member has seen it, but it has been well received by the cultural community and by artists, who have commented that they think that the board has recognised the issues and that it needs to move on.

The board will change Creative Scotland’s operational structure to use staff knowledge and expertise more effectively, and it will establish internal and external forums to allow artists, creative practitioners and staff to contribute to policy development. Long-term funding will be offered, and there will be changes to the perceived hierarchy in its funding operations.

There is an opportunity for Creative Scotland to move on. We have a very strong artistic sector and a vibrant cultural scene in Scotland, and it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the organisation can move on. Andrew Dixon has resigned, but more has to be done with the organisation. The board’s statement and the actions that it announced on Friday are a good step forward in that direction, and the sector has recognised that.

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that she retains full confidence in the board of Creative Scotland and that following the publication of the internal reviews, which is due to take place on Friday, she will take all necessary steps to restore the confidence of members of the artistic community in Scotland in the organisation?

As the member mentioned in his previous question, I have written to the board on a number of occasions, setting out my concerns in letters of guidance to it. I made it clear in October that I wanted it to address the concerns about its operations. After my discussions with the board in June, it had already taken steps to establish the interim report process and, as the member said, those reports will be published on Friday.

The member might not be aware of the statement by the board last Friday, in which it indicated what actions it is going to take in some areas. The interim reports that will be published on Friday will also set out specific actions, which is what people expect and require. I think that we can take confidence from the statement by the board last Friday, which has been well received by the sector.

There is a job of work to be done, and I expect that work to happen. We need strong relationships between Creative Scotland and our artists. Over many years—since before my time as culture secretary and, indeed, since before our term in government—there has been a real issue with the relationships between artists and the funding organisation and the wider remit. However, the steps that the board is taking and the tone of the statement are the appropriate way forward. I think that the board deserves the support not just of the Parliament but of others in taking those actions forward.

I very much agree with the cabinet secretary that the response of the board of Creative Scotland on Friday was helpful in setting a good course for the body to take. However, given the interventions that she made in June and October, I wonder why Creative Scotland could not have come to a similar conclusion sooner and why it took the resignation of the chief executive to bring about the changes. I would be grateful for her assurance that, over the period that we are about to face, when the organisation will be without a chief executive to lead it, there will be stability and continuity for those artists and arts organisations that depend on Creative Scotland.

I agree with Patricia Ferguson that stability and continuity are essential. Strong relationships help to develop the cultural sector and are necessary for the work of the artists themselves and others within the sector who are dependent on Creative Scotland.

Patricia Ferguson talks about change, but the board had been examining the issues for some time. I gave evidence to the Education and Culture Committee a few months ago in which I said that we should allow the board time to carry out its piece of work. Two reports were produced by two of the board members, which were considered at length by the board last week. I do not think that it took the resignation for those actions to be taken; indeed, the work of the board has been on-going for several months.

The statement that the board made on Friday was definitive and was also a result of listening. If it was to listen to the sector—to the artists and, importantly, to the staff of the organisation—it was important that the board had the time to pursue its deliberations. I recommend that everyone read Friday’s statement. I will ensure that it is in the Scottish Parliament information centre, so that all members will have access to it.