The next item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on unconventional oil and gas. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement and therefore there should not be any interventions or interruptions.
14:41
The Scottish Government has long been concerned about the United Kingdom Government’s approach to the licensing of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland. Following the Smith commission process, and given that licensing powers are coming to Scotland—something that I campaigned for and welcome—it makes no sense for the UK Government to exercise them in Scotland.
The Scottish Government’s policy has been cautious, considered and evidence-based, whereas the UK’s approach has sought to develop shale gas quickly, at any cost. In particular, the Tory plan to remove landowners’ rights to object to fracking under their property is a disgrace. I formally objected to the UK Government plans and I am pleased that the UK will not now remove householders’ rights in Scotland.
Given that precedent of not acting in a policy area that is about to be devolved, the UK Government should do the same with onshore licensing and not issue any further licences. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Davey, last Friday to make that point. That is also why Scottish National Party MPs backed the amendment in the House of Commons, which called for a UK-wide moratorium on onshore oil and gas.
This Government takes the issue of unconventional oil and gas, including fracking, very seriously. There are a range of views on the issue and we have tried to listen to all of them as we have developed our policy. We have listened carefully to concerns raised by local communities and environmental campaigners and have strengthened planning policy in five key ways, including the introduction of buffer zones for the first time.
However, we need to do more. We recognise that local communities are likely to bear the brunt of any unconventional oil and gas developments, particularly through increased traffic and the related emissions and noise impacts, which are issues that must be more carefully considered and subject to further research. We are therefore working to further strengthen planning guidance, and my colleague Alex Neil, as the minister responsible for planning, is taking that forward.
We have ensured that strong environmental regulation is in place via the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and made clear that we wish to tighten that further. Work to take that forward will begin shortly, in partnership with my colleague Dr Aileen McLeod, the Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform.
Last summer, when the independent expert scientific panel published its report, we said that we would look further at the public health aspects of unconventional oil and gas. I can confirm today that we plan to commission a full public health impact assessment. We have listened to legitimate concerns about the potential negative impacts. However, we must also acknowledge that some take a different view and see opportunities in unconventional oil and gas extraction. The oil and gas industry, in particular, has a potential interest in this area for a number of reasons, as does the chemical industry. Ineos has indicated that it can use shale gas as both a fuel and a petrochemical feedstock for Grangemouth. I am sure that I do not need to remind members of Grangemouth’s economic importance to the Scottish economy.
Although much of the debate on oil and gas taxation has been about the revenues from our offshore oil fields, onshore extraction could lead to additional public revenues.
There is also an international dimension to unconventionals, and we should have due regard to the experience and practice of other countries. If there are lessons to be learned, we must understand what those are and implement them here. We will seek to do that as part of our evidence-gathering activities.
I want to ensure that the voices of the communities that are likely to be most affected are heard in a more formal and structured way. I therefore announce that, in addition to the technical work that I have referred to on planning, environmental regulation and assessing the impact on public health, the Scottish ministers will launch a full public consultation on unconventional oil and gas extraction. That will allow everyone with a view on the issue to feed it into Government; it is a logical next step in the cautious and evidence-based approach that we have demonstrated to date and an example of this Government’s commitment to community engagement. It will also mean that longer-term decisions on unconventional oil and gas will be informed not just by technical assessments, but by a fuller understanding of public opinion.
I have set out this Government’s cautious, evidence-based approach to date and the work that we will do to build on and further inform that approach. The further work that I have announced on planning, environmental regulation, assessing the health impact and holding a full consultation process will take time to complete. We will update Parliament on the timescales for that work in due course.
Given the importance of that work, it would be inappropriate to allow any planning consents in the meantime. I am therefore announcing a moratorium on the granting of planning consents for all unconventional oil and gas developments, including fracking. That moratorium will continue until such time as the work that I have referred to has been completed. I will keep Parliament advised of the progress of that work. A direction will be sent to all Scottish planning authorities today to give effect to that policy. In order to ensure consistency in the regulatory regimes, the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform will issue a similar direction to SEPA for relevant new controlled activity regulation licences.
The Scottish Government has taken a responsible, cautious and evidence-based approach to unconventional oil and gas extraction, and my statement sends the strongest possible message that we will continue to do so. When we assume responsibility for onshore licensing of unconventional oil and gas, rest assured that my colleague Mr Neil and I will deliver a robust, consistent and complementary licensing and planning system that will be developed through the evidence that we receive from our consultation and the further research that I have announced.
We should never close our minds to the potential opportunities of new technologies, but we must also ensure that community, environmental and health concerns are never simply brushed aside. This Government will not allow that to happen, and I hope that the actions that I have announced today will be widely welcomed as proportionate and responsible.
The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for that, after which we will move on to the next item of business.
Nobody who knows him will be surprised that Mr Ewing used the word “cautious” four times in his short statement—an advance copy of which I thank him for—but the most important words that he used were
“we need to do more.”
Indeed, the Scottish Government needs to do much more if it is to meet public concern about the issue.
Labour has pressed for early devolution of licensing powers following the Smith agreement—[Interruption.]
Order.
The response of some of those behind the minister is very revealing indeed: it shows how selective they are in the way that they have followed this issue.
As I have said, we have pressed for the early devolution of licensing powers, but the key issue is how ministers use the planning and environmental consent powers that they already have. Despite his instinct for caution, therefore, will the minister add some more to what he has to say about those issues?
Labour at Westminster added 13 specific conditions—[Interruption.]
Order.
Members would do well to listen to what I have to say—
Just get to the question, Mr Macdonald.
—so that they can be a little better informed in dealing with these issues.
Labour has added to the Infrastructure Bill 13 specific conditions that must be met before consent can be given to fracking, and 10 of those conditions relate to devolved areas. Will the Scottish Government endorse those 13 conditions to ensure that the consents regime in Scotland is at least as tough as that in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Will the minister today match Scottish Labour’s commitment that Scotland will not be the first to frack in the UK and that fracking will not happen here until lessons have been learned from elsewhere? Finally, will the Scottish Government now agree that no fracking project can proceed without the support of a local community expressed in a local referendum?
It is the hope of the Scottish Government that it can build the widest consensus and coalition behind the measures that we have announced today, which we believe, as Lewis Macdonald has recognised, are characterised by a cautious approach in which the evidence will be the central foundation of the decisions that should be taken. As a lawyer and MSP, I believe profoundly that that is the correct approach.
Today we have announced a moratorium in Scotland on unconventional oil and gas extraction, and that moratorium will prevent any planning permission from being granted until such time as we have completed the work that I have announced. It is not necessary to hold local referenda on these issues, because no planning permission will be granted while the moratorium is in place. [Interruption.]
Order.
I gently point out to Mr Macdonald that his colleagues in Westminster might say that they wish to stop fracking but when they have an opportunity to vote to halt it they abstain or just do not turn up. That is a very funny approach to the matter. It might be that, as the former Labour leader in Scotland said, Scottish Labour is a branch office. Although it is under new management, it appears that nothing very much has changed.
As for the suggestion about local referenda, I note that the Labour Party’s track record in such things is not auspicious. When it held a referendum in Aberdeen on the Union Terrace proposals, the people said yes but Labour said no.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, but it looks like his need not to be outflanked on this issue by Labour means that he has suffered a humiliating defeat in his war with Joan McAlpine. It must be a source of regret that so much of this debate has been characterised by political posturing instead of being evidence led and science based, and that the Scottish Government would rather play politics than take decisions in the best interests of the Scottish economy.
Yesterday, Tom Crotty of Ineos said that, if Scotland did not embrace shale gas, we could see a collapse in manufacturing. Little more than a year ago, every major party in this Parliament came together to help secure the future of the Ineos Grangemouth plant and the thousands of jobs that rely upon it. Now the Scottish Government has taken the decision to cut off any domestic supply of shale gas to Grangemouth, even though Ineos has said that that would help secure jobs for the future. Instead, it will have to continue to import shale gas from the United States. Is it really the Scottish Government’s position that fracking is fine as long as it happens in Pennsylvania, but not if it happens in our back yard?
It is our position that in Scotland we should look at the evidence pertaining to Scotland. However, that evidence does not exist—that was the conclusion last year of our independent panel, which said that there were considerable gaps in our knowledge of hydraulic fracturing in Scotland.
Let me repeat that we closely engage Ineos and meet it regularly. I made it absolutely clear that we want to hear everyone’s view in the consultation that I have announced. That includes Ineos and the chemical sector’s views just as it includes those of individuals and communities throughout the country.
Murdo Fraser overstates and exaggerates his case. In yesterday’s newspapers, Mr Crotty made it clear that the supply of gas required to continue its operation is per a contract that has been secured for 13 years. We welcome that; indeed, John Swinney and the former First Minister were fully involved in supporting and helping to facilitate those arrangements.
I will turn to the approach that Murdo Fraser’s colleagues in England are taking. I first characterised that approach as “gung-ho”. Their approach is to carry out fracking any time, any place, anywhere. It seems to me that an inevitable consequence, as we have seen in places where planning applications have been made in England, is conflict and confrontation—leading, I suspect, to challenges in court. Therefore, I suggest that the Conservatives revert to the approach advocated in their policy document of January 2013, which was to take an evidence-based approach on these matters.
Many members want to ask a question. If the questions and the answers are as brief as possible, we might just get to the end of the list.
The minister will be aware of my significant constituency interests. How will his statement affect the live planning application for unconventional gas extraction in Airth?
I warmly welcome the moratorium, including the commitment to conduct a full public health impact assessment and a full public consultation on UG extraction. Will the minister give an assurance that evidence will be gathered from experiences in other parts of the globe and not just those in the United Kingdom?
I recognise that Angus MacDonald has consistently and long campaigned for his constituents on these matters. I pay tribute to his industry and how he has pursued the issues. His representations helped to form part of the process that persuaded us that we need to consider the public health impacts—I am happy to confirm that that will happen.
The moratorium cannot be applied retroactively to existing planning applications. However, it will be applicable with immediate effect. The chief planner of Scotland and my colleague, Mr Neil, are taking that forward.
I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. It has been fascinating to watch Labour and the Scottish National Party try to outdo each other in sounding sceptical about fracking, which they both support.
Just so that we are clear, is Mr Ewing saying that, after all the consultations, assessments and impact studies have been completed, that he as energy minister will be ruling out signing any contract for fracking in Scotland?
The whole point of obtaining evidence on, as I have announced, a series of fronts and a variety of issues—which are of genuine concern; I would have thought that Mr McArthur, as some of his colleagues have, would acknowledge that—is to consider the evidence once we have it and not to prejudge it before we have sought or obtained it. Plainly, we will not prejudge the outcome of the process that we have set out.
I hope that the United Kingdom Government will listen to the recent plea that I made to Liam McArthur’s colleague, Ed Davey, that no further licences should be issued in Scotland, following the principle set out by Amber Rudd in disapplying from Scotland the Liberal and Conservative proposal to confiscate the rights of householders to object to activities under their houses. Now that that precedent has been set, surely Liam McArthur and the Scottish Liberals will say that no further licences should be granted by their colleagues who are in the coalition Government with the Conservatives? I very much hope that they will speak out on that issue.
Friends of the Earth Scotland head of campaigns Mary Church said of Monday’s vote at Westminster on a UK-wide moratorium on fracking:
“It was a surprise that Scottish Labour MPs ... mostly abstained, given the party’s new commitments over the weekend.”
Does the minister agree with Mary Church? Does he also agree that the vote clearly exposed Labour’s posturing on fracking to be nothing more than a disgraceful, shameless sham?
Minister, that did not relate to the content of your statement. I call Jackie Baillie.
I give the minister another chance to provide clarity on the Government’s position. Will he give a yes or no response on two elements of Labour’s triple-lock system? First, does he agree that there will be no fracking in Scotland until we learn lessons from the rest of the United Kingdom? I did not hear an answer when Lewis Macdonald asked that question. Secondly, given that he said in his statement that the moratorium is not indefinite, will he agree to local referenda when applications are submitted? Will he deny communities a voice on issues that affect their areas?
Today I announced a moratorium on granting planning permission for the extraction of unconventional oil and gas. Let me make this absolutely clear: that means that no planning permissions will be granted for that activity. The Scottish Government position is therefore totally clear—[Interruption.]
Order.
A moratorium applies and no planning permissions will be granted. I am not quite sure what part of that is unclear.
On the second part of Jackie Baillie’s question, according to the initial advice that we have had, local referenda would be complex and costly. It would be difficult if not impossible to ascertain the electorate, given the nature of fracking activity, which happens beneath the ground over an extensive area. Therefore such an approach is not sensible—nor, indeed, is it currently part of planning law.
However, because we have announced a moratorium, the questions that Jackie Baillie raised do not arise. It seems that the Labour position is not so much a triple lock as a total joke.
I warmly welcome the statement and, in particular, the moratorium. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the consultation is as far reaching as possible, so that the voices of the people of Scotland on unconventional oil and gas extraction are heard?
I hope that all members can agree that it is right that decisions about such matters are taken in Scotland. We hope that in 2016 we will have the opportunity to take decisions armed with not just some of the relevant levers. We hope to have levers in relation to not just planning and environmental regulation but licensing, which is the key lever—that is why it is so important.
Mr Dey was right to suggest that there should be wide consultation of the people of Scotland, whom we represent. The people of Scotland are entitled to and should have the opportunity to participate in a debate about proposals on a technology that, although it is not new in any sense, will be newly applied in Scotland. We intend to announce the consultation in around two months’ time. It will last for the standard period of 12 weeks. I very much look forward to engaging with all the people of Scotland in the debate.
Will the minister confirm that he will consider the climate change implications of fracking and coal-bed methane extraction? In particular, will he consider the research into fugitive emissions, given that the Scottish Government failed to meet its own climate targets in their first three years?
I confirm that that is, of course, one of the relevant issues that Dr McLeod and I will consider carefully in the course of the evidence-gathering exercise that I described today.
Can the minister confirm that the granting of further licences by the UK Government cannot circumvent Scotland’s planning system, through which applications will be determined?
The purpose of the moratorium is to use the powers that we have to ensure that we can obtain the necessary evidence and have the consultation that I described.
I point out to Mr Coffey that it is a matter of fact that planning decisions can be challenged through the courts—they are subject to challenge by judicial review and in other ways. The only means whereby Scotland can take full power and control in decision making and represent the people of Scotland on such matters is by restoration to Scotland of all powers in that regard, so that we have powers in relation to not just planning but licensing.
Where does the Scottish Government moratorium leave communities such as Canonbie, in my region, where permission for coal-bed methane extraction has already been granted? Does the minister agree that, however robust any future guidelines might be if fracking were to go ahead, the skills capacity does not exist to assess applications or monitor developments?
It is a perfectly valid question and we have given considerable thought to it. That is why, as I indicated earlier, Dr McLeod has issued a direction today to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency that no controlled activity regulation licences will be issued in respect of any unconventional gas application during the moratorium. That action has been taken with ministers—me, Mr Neil and Dr McLeod—working together.
Of course, the answer again is that if we had full powers in Scotland over all these matters, including power over the licensing—the ability to grant the right to carry out mineral extraction in the first place—we would be far better able to control these matters in Scotland than we are while they are in the hands of a Conservative-Liberal Government in London.
Can the minister deal with the question of the international evidence gathering that needs to be carried out on public health and on methane emissions in a way that separates the worrying facts surrounding unconventional oil and gas extraction from the fictions that are out there about fossil fuel use being acceptable in this day and age?
As I have already stated, that will be the subject of consideration in our evidence-based approach. The member knows that we are in transition to a low-carbon economy and that we have made great strides forward both in generating green electricity and in reducing emissions. However, there is more work to do. In the course of the evidence gathering that I have described, we will consider those matters with extreme care.
The Scottish Green Party is pleased that the Scottish Government has finally agreed with our long-standing call for clear opposition to unconventional gas extraction. The huge public support that we have had for our principled stance has undoubtedly played an important part in today’s announcement, but of course a moratorium is only—
I really need a question, Ms Johnstone.
A moratorium is only a delay or a suspension. Is the minister aware that, if he keeps this door ajar, public opposition will continue to grow and the Greens will continue to engage with those communities across Scotland that want an outright ban now?
As I said at the very outset, I hope that a broad consensus can emerge that the proposals that I have announced today on behalf of the Scottish Government are a sound, sensible and cautious approach and that we will have a national debate that is characterised by examining the evidence and looking at it with extreme care. As the member knows, we need to do that precisely because we do not have all the evidence relating to Scotland in a whole variety of ways. The debate should be better informed by the process that I have set out today.
In the meantime, the moratorium will apply until the process of evidence gathering and consultation has been concluded. I think that that is the right approach, as is not prejudging the outcome of that process, but of course everyone in the chamber is perfectly entitled to continue to campaign and make their views known. I am perfectly sure that that is exactly what they will do.
The minister is well aware of my concerns about the underground coal gasification proposals for Fife. Will the minister’s announcement on a moratorium apply to the UCG proposals for the Firth of Forth?
The powers that we possess apply to onshore planning activities. As the member will know, they do not apply to offshore activities such as those that I believe would be covered by UCG. Therefore, in the meantime, we urge the potential developers to engage closely with the local communities on these matters and to acknowledge that the highest possible standards in respect of environmental regulation must be pursued. Of course, were we to be in possession of powers in relation to offshore licensing as well, then we could have been in a position to make further progress, as Claire Baker might wish us to do, but, sadly, we are not yet in such a position.
In the interests of complete clarity about the Scottish Government’s position, is the minister saying that any landowner in Scotland would be in a position to prevent fracking under his property?
Applications are considered in accordance with the planning process. Today, I have announced that a moratorium applies in Scotland. Applications will therefore not be granted, pending the outcome of the process that I have described. [Interruption.]
Order, Mr Fraser.
We took a view that I think is widely shared in Scotland. When Matt Hancock announced on 28 July—without any consultation of the Scottish Government, far less of the Scottish people—that rights to object to activities underneath people’s houses would be withdrawn, we thought that that decision was entirely wrong. I think that most people in Scotland agree with us.
My apologies to Richard Simpson. I am afraid that I need to move on.
Previous
Portfolio Question TimeNext
Women Offenders