Fracking (Removal of Right to Object)
To ask the Scottish Government what recent representations it has made to the United Kingdom Government regarding the removal of the right of householders in Scotland to object to fracking taking place beneath their homes. (S4T-00796)
On 14 August 2014, the Scottish Government formally responded to the UK Government’s consultation on underground drilling access rights. The Scottish Government formally opposed the UK Government’s proposals to remove landowners’ rights in respect of drilling under their land on the basis that matters of such gravity should be a decision for the people of Scotland through the Scottish Parliament.
A significant number of my constituents are concerned about the dash for gas being pursued by Westminster and are extremely disappointed that the UK Government is disregarding their views. Riding roughshod over public opinion and removing householders’ rights without adequate debate is not good government. With 99 per cent of respondents to the UK consultation objecting to the plans, will the cabinet secretary assure me and my constituents that the Scottish Government will continue to look at the issue of unconventional gas extraction in a cautious, considered and evidence-based fashion, as opposed to the UK Government’s gung-ho attitude?
I give Mr MacDonald the assurance that the Scottish Government will continue what we have being doing throughout our handling of the issue, which is to look at the issues that are raised by unconventional gas opportunities through an evidence-based and led process. That is demonstrated by our appointment of the independent expert scientific panel, which reported in July. It is also evidenced in our decision to strengthen planning policy with five new measures relating to hydraulic fracturing, including the requirement that developments should proceed only if communities and the environment can be protected. We will continue to take that approach.
Given that the UK Government has ignored the representations made not only by the Scottish Government but by 99 per cent of the respondents to its consultation, does the cabinet secretary agree that all the powers relating to unconventional oil and gas should be devolved, as was suggested only last week by Andrew Tyrie MP, chair of the Treasury Select Committee?
Mr MacDonald will not be surprised to hear that I am a supporter of all the relevant powers being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The UK Government’s response to the consultation highlights the necessity for decision making by politicians to be taken in accordance with and in proximity to the aspirations, outlook and perspective of the people they affect. It is a matter of regret that the UK Government’s decision has not followed the overwhelming evidence base that was submitted to its consultation.
As the cabinet secretary knows, the Scottish Government has overall power over planning, which has enabled it to prevent the development of the nuclear industry. In relation to devolved planning issues, how will the Government take forward the detailed guidance to ensure that it is robust and that it recognises the environmental concerns about unconventional gas extraction of my constituents in South Scotland and of people across Scotland?
I recognise the issues that Claudia Beamish raises. An indication of the Government’s approach was given in the formulation of the national planning framework and the Scottish planning policy. Sections 245 and 246 of the Scottish planning policy give further detail on how the Government will proceed in developing some of the further guidance.
Individual planning applications are considered case by case. A case is with reporters. The issues that are relevant to the Scottish planning policy will be implicit in that determination.
I am reassured by the minister’s answers. Can I have an understanding from the minister that, when we progress the issue, our decision-making process will be evidence based and we will not give into the misinformation and the conspiracy theories that seem to abound among those who oppose fracking for no other reason than that they believe it to be a dangerous or bad idea? This is a huge opportunity for Scotland. Will he assure me that this will be done using common sense?
I simply reiterate to Mr Johnstone the answer that I gave to Mr MacDonald: the Government will continue in a considered and evidence-based way. That is how we have structured our approach to the issue, and that is why it is regrettable that the UK Government has taken the decision to overrule the legitimate rights of individuals to raise concerns, which apply throughout the planning process.
The work that the expert scientific panel on unconventional oil and gas did for the Scottish Government was highly informative on steps that need to be taken to handle the issue. I recognise Mr Johnstone’s enthusiasm for the issue, but we must be mindful that many, many people in our country have concerns about unconventional oil and gas opportunities and want to be assured that proper and due process will be applied in all circumstances. I confirm to the Parliament that that will be the case.
It is pretty extraordinary to hear concerns about adding to stocks of fossil fuels described as “conspiracy theories”.
Given that 99 per cent of consultation respondents have more sense than that, and given that opinion polling shows stronger opposition to the measures in Scotland than in any other part of the UK, surely what matters is not just whether the decision is made in Westminster or Holyrood but whether the decision is made at all. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that if the power to make the decision is brought to Holyrood, his Government will oppose the action that the UK Government has indicated that it supports for the UK as a whole?
I can say to Mr Harvie that the Scottish Government does not support the removal of householders’ rights to object to oil and gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing beneath their homes. We have been clear about that, and if we had the opportunity to do something different, we would take the opposite step.
On the wider issue, we have said that a variety of complex issues have to be wrestled with, which is why we take an evidence-based and considered approach to the resolution of all the issues. That is what I think that people expect of Government.
The UK Government’s decision to ignore the evidence in the response to the consultation and to proceed to remove householders’ rights of objection is regrettable and will fuel rather than address the unease that has been expressed about the issues.
Commonwealth Games (Policing Costs)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on Police Scotland’s decision not to make details of the cost of policing the Commonwealth games public. (S4T-00797)
Police Scotland has not made a decision to withhold the cost of Commonwealth games policing. The process of finalising the figures on the use of the Commonwealth games safety and security budget is on-going and, as a result, it would be inappropriate to release figures at this stage.
Police Scotland is clear about the need for transparency and accountability on the spending of public money and has assured the Scottish Government that when the figures have been finalised, details of the safety and security budget will be published without prejudice.
The Scottish Police Authority’s finance and investment committee is meeting in closed session as we speak and is receiving an update on the cost of Commonwealth games policing. It does not matter how often the SPA meets in public; it is by looking at what it chooses to hide and what it opts to receive in private that we can test whether it is meeting its obligations.
Knowledge of how money is spent is key to maintaining confidence. When will the public be told the final cost of security for the games?
It is worth reminding the member that Police Scotland’s line of accountability for the safety and security budget is to the Scottish Government.
The SPA considers papers in private when figures are not finalised. The figures that we are talking about are not finalised; they will be finalised as soon as possible. Surely it would not be right to put into the public domain figures that are not finalised. I assure Alison McInnes that as soon as the figures are finalised, they will be put into the public domain. The SPA will of course be able to revisit matters, should it wish to do so.
Can the cabinet secretary give an early indication of whether spend came within the £90 million budget or whether overtime, time off in lieu and the movement of officers around the country were such that costs overran?
Police Scotland is confident that the total spend will be within the £90 million that was allocated for safety and security. I put on record again our appreciation of the officers who were involved and of their great efforts during the Commonwealth games. They were a credit to Police Scotland and the country.
All overtime payments will be met from the safety and security budget. As I said, Police Scotland does not expect the total spend to exceed the £90 million budget that was allocated to safety and security.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her replies. I am sure that Alison McInnes will get some answers at the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, which she is a member of.
I am interested in picking up the cab sec’s point about the work that the police did. They did a fantastic job during the Commonwealth games. Have her comments about the fine work that was done been relayed to all staff in Police Scotland?
Absolutely. It is important to recognise that, as well as those on the front line, many officers and civilians were involved behind the scenes. I sent a personal thank you to all the agencies that were involved and asked for it to be relayed across the board to those who helped to deliver the most successful Commonwealth games ever, as the Commonwealth Games Federation described them.
The dedication of not just our police officers but the fire service, the health service and the Scottish Ambulance Service—all those important services were first class—helped us to deliver a Commonwealth games that was not just fantastic but safe and secure. Everybody appreciates that.
Police Scotland did an excellent job, but is the cabinet secretary aware that serving police officers have contacted many MSPs about what they consider to have been the unreasonable demands that were placed on them to ensure that the Commonwealth games were policed? Ethical issues could be raised. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that Police Scotland has put in place a process for whistleblowers to ensure that any potential ethical or criminal wrongdoing is highlighted and that appropriate action is taken?
The vast majority of police officers saw it as a once-in-a-career opportunity to be involved in such a fantastic event as the Commonwealth games.
I have already dealt with overtime payments. The plans for TOIL and rest days were put in place with the Scottish Police Federation’s support and allow officers extended time to take any outstanding rest days that they might have accrued. Some of the practicalities have been dealt with.
If an individual officer feels that undue pressures were put on them, that would be a matter for Police Scotland. I would hope that such cases would be very much in the minority, because the feedback that I have had from the vast majority of officers is that being involved was a pleasure and a delight. It was hard work and we appreciate the efforts that were made to deliver a safe and secure games, but I think that the vast majority of officers will remember them for some time.
Iraq (Humanitarian Aid)
Before asking my question, I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests. Last summer, I spent time in Kurdistan as a guest of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which may be relevant to my question.
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it will support humanitarian efforts in Iraq in light of the United Kingdom Parliament’s approval of air strikes in the country. (S4T-00793)
The brutality of the so-called Islamic State, or Isil, is beyond question. The Scottish Government supports international efforts to support the people of Iraq, Syria and the wider middle east, which is possible only through a long-term strategic approach that is led by regional partners and which includes tackling radicalisation at home and abroad and making efforts to cut off Isil’s sources of finance and weaponry.
The international humanitarian crisis continues, and we define our response to such situations case by case, usually related to the launch of a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal—for example, the Government gave £200,000 to the DEC’s Syria appeal.
We will continue to monitor the situation carefully and, when appropriate, we will offer support. We have written to the UK Government to that effect.
I believe that there is a role for air support from the international community to relieve a devastating humanitarian crisis and to help communities in the Kurdish region of Iraq and beyond, including in Syria, to defend themselves. Furthermore, had the Iraqi Government not blocked earlier efforts of the Kurdish regional government to properly arm its Peshmerga, the situation might never have got so dire.
Unfortunately, on Friday, the UK Government gave an open-ended commitment on Iraq for years without any real consideration of future peace and stability. Will the minister make representations to the UK Government, putting the case for proportionate and targeted use of air support specifically for the purposes that I have outlined as well as making a strong case that any future peace plan must include support for the Kurdish regions in both countries, supporting stable, democratic self-government and ensuring that they have the capacity to defend themselves in the future, thereby averting future humanitarian crises?
You are well wide of your first question, Mr Doris, which I understood was about humanitarian efforts in Iraq.
During Friday’s debate in the House of Commons, my colleague Angus Robertson said that the UK must not equivocate in its support for the Kurdish regional government, which must be supported. The Scottish Government supports that view. However, military action against Isil must be carried out within a long-term strategic plan that includes a plan for peace. What we were presented with by the UK Government was lacking in those elements. An open-ended bombing campaign alone will be counterproductive.
On the Kurds in Syria, the global community must redouble its efforts to find a long-term solution to the civil war in that country. A political solution must be found alongside any military solution, and it must be based on a human rights approach that protects the rights of all communities, including Kurds, in Syria. As a Government, we will support action within a long-term, strategic plan—a plan for peace is legal within the international framework—and our strong preference is that such action be led by regional partners. The First Minister will write to the Prime Minister this week to highlight the Scottish Government’s concern about the UK Government’s vote for military action against Isil without a specific timescale, without a plan for securing peace and without a long-term, strategic vision.
I call Lewis Macdonald. I ask you to keep your question to humanitarian efforts in Iraq, Mr Macdonald.
Certainly, Presiding Officer. For the avoidance of doubt, will the minister confirm his position on the UK Government’s provision of assistance of all types to the Kurdish population of northern Iraq?
We support the provision of support and training to the Kurdish regional government. We understand its needs. However, any military action must not only have a legal basis—we know that it does—but be part of a long-term, strategic plan that includes a plan for peace and an exit strategy. That was missing from what was voted on on Friday. The vote on Friday did not separate actions to support the Kurdish away from the general situation in Iraq; we had to look at the action as a whole, and we could not support that action because we think that it would be counterproductive as opposed to helpful to the people on the ground, be they Kurds in Kurdistan or the wider Iraqi population.
I call Patricia Ferguson to ask a question on humanitarian aid in Iraq.
What humanitarian support is the Scottish Government providing to Iraq, and has it offered to support the efforts of the UK Government in that respect?
I wrote to Hugo Swire, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on that very point. The Scottish Government is willing to provide any assistance that it can. Currently, Iraq does not come within the terms of our international development budget, but I am more than happy to discuss with members how we might offer such support. That offer was made to the UK Government back in August and continues to be the case. I am sure that, when the First Minister writes to the Prime Minister, he will reiterate the Scottish Government’s willingness to help with the humanitarian effort wherever we can.
Previous
Time for ReflectionNext
Housing