►
Description
S5M-08341 Paul Wheelhouse: Unconventional Oil and Gas—That the Parliament agrees with
the Scottish Government’s position of not supporting the development of unconventional oil and
gas in Scotland; endorses the government's decision to introduce an immediate and effective ban
on onshore unconventional oil and gas developments using its devolved powers in line with
the Scottish Ministers’ statutory responsibilities, and notes that this position will be subject to a
strategic environmental assessment before being finalised.
Published by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body.
www.parliament.scot // We do not facilitate discussions on our YouTube page but encourage you to share and comment on our videos on your own channels. // If you would like to join in our conversations please follow @ScotParl on Twitter or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/scottishparliament
A
The
next
item
of
business
is
a
debate
on
motion.
It
free
for
one
in
the
name
of
Paul
Phil
house
on
unconventional
oil
and
gas,
may
I
ask
those
members
who
wish
to
take
part
in
the
to
be
to
press
the
request
to
speak
buttons
now
and
I
call
on
Paul
Fieldhouse
to
speak
to
and
move
the
motion
up
to
12
minutes,
please
Minister
Thank.
B
Today,
I
reaffirm
that
position
and
honoring
the
commitment
I
made
on
the
8th
of
November
last
year,
I
give
Parliament
an
opportunity
to
endorse
our
carefully
considered
and
robust
position
on
unconventional
oil
and
gas
sailing
officer.
The
government
has
undertaken
one
of
the
most
far-reaching
investigations
of
any
government
anywhere
into
unconventional
and
gas.
This
began
in
2013
when
I'm,
a
predecessor,
Fergus
Ewing,
established
an
independent
expert
scientific
panel
to
examine
the
evidence
and
unconventional
oil
and
gas,
including
hydraulic,
fracturing
or
fracking,
and
coal
bed
methane
extraction.
The
panel
reported
its
findings
in
July
2014.
B
After
carefully
considering
its
findings,
we
introduced
a
moratorium
on
onshore
unconventional
oil
and
gas
in
January
of
2015.
This
created
space
to
explore
the
specific
issues
and
evidential
gaps
identified
by
the
expert
panel
and
to
undertake
a
comprehensive
period
of
public
engagement
and
dialogue
in
early
2016,
we
commissioned
a
further
suite
of
independent
research
reports
to
address
the
evidential
gaps
identified
by
the
panel.
B
The
reports
covering
health,
economic
and
environmental
matters
allows
us
to
consider
a
further
independent
expert
scientific
advice,
including
from
British
Geological
Survey,
health
protection,
Scotland
KPMG
and
the
UK
Committee
on
climate
change.
The
research
reports
were
published
in
fool
on
the
8th
of
November
last
year,
allowing
stakeholders
and
the
people
of
Scotland,
almost
three
months
to
consider
the
evidence
in
advance
of
our
public
consultation
that
consultation
talking
fracking
was
launched
on
31st
of
January
this
year.
The
consultation
took
a
number
of
innovative
steps
to
encourage
debate,
dialogue
and
white
participation.
B
The
consultation
findings
were
published
in
full
on
a
third
of
October
this
year.
In
advance
of
my
ministerial
statement,
members
across
this
chamber
should
be
a
no
doubt.
Ours
has
been
a
considered
program
of
investigation
that
explored
issues
in
depth
and
encouraged
an
informed,
balanced
dialogue
across
Scotland
in
coming
to
a
view.
An
unconventional
oil
and
gas
we
carefully
considered
the
findings
of
our
extensive
research
alongside
the
results
of
our
public
consultation
in
reviewing
the
research
findings.
B
I
had
particular
concerns
over
the
insufficiency
of
epidemiological
evidence
on
health
impacts
highlighted
by
Health
Protection
Scotland
health
protections.
Gaunt
also
noted
that
a
precautionary
approach
to
unconventional
oil
and
gas
is
warranted
on
the
basis
of
the
available
evidence.
The
position
we
have
taken
on
unconventional
oil
and
gas
is
a
clear
deployment
of
the
precautionary
principle.
The
committee
unclaimed
exchange
report
sets
out
that
the
additional
missions
generated
by
unconventional
oil
and
gas
extraction
in
Scotland
we'd
make
meeting
our
existing
climate
change
targets
more
challenging.
B
The
committee
forecast,
the
greenhouse
gas
emissions
from
an
industry
in
2035
could
range
from
not
0.4
megatons
of
co2,
equivalent
to
2.6
megatons
of
co2,
equivalent
under
central
and
high
production
scenarios,
depending
on
the
scale
of
the
industry
and
the
extent
of
regulation
I'll
make
some
progress
in
bring
mr.
friendly
and
listo.
For
me,
I
remained
the
chamber.
That's
got
a
statutory
annual
climate
change
target
for
2030
as
26.4
megatons
of
co2
equivalent.
The
D.
B
Does
the
committee
states
in
its
report,
in
order
to
be
compatible
with
Spartans
climate
change,
targets,
new
emissions
from
unconventional
oil
and
gas
production?
We
need
to
be
offset
through
reductions
in
emissions
elsewhere
in
Scottish
economy,
with
consequential
costs
for
the
sector's
affected
I'll
bring
in
mr.
Finley
a
few
near.
B
What
to
say,
presiding
officer,
we
it's
a
little
worth
they're
taking
at
that
point,
but
Tim
mr.
friendly
can
continue
to
press
for
information
if
he
wishes.
I
want
to
get
on
with
a
statement
we
have
for
you
presiding
officer,
our
consultation,
embodied
our
commitment
to
local
communities,
participating
and
decisions
that
matter
to
them.
The
overwhelming
majority
of
respondents
were
opposed
to
the
development
of
an
unconventional
oil
and
gas
industry
in
Scotland
well
not
to
referendum.
B
Approximately
99%
of
the
responses
were
opposed
to
gun,
unconventional
oil
and
gas
extraction
in
Scotland,
and
fewer
than
1
percent
were
in
favor.
It
is
our
responsibility
as
a
government
to
make
a
decision.
We
believe,
is
a
in
the
best
interest
of
the
people
of
this
country.
We
must
be
confident
that
the
choices
we
make
will
not
compromise
health
and
safety
or
damage
the
environment
in
which
we
live.
B
Having
considered
this
matter
in
detail,
it
is
my
view
and
that
of
the
Scottish
government,
that
there
is
no
social
licence
for
unconventional
oil
and
gas
to
be
taken
forward.
At
this
time,
noting
strong
opposition
in
the
13
local
authority
areas
most
likely
to
be
impacted
by
fracking,
and
the
research
we
commissioned
did
not
provide
a
strong
enough
basis
from
which
to
address
those
community's
concerns.
Presiding
officer,
I've
noted
calls
that
have
been
made
by
some
groups
and
I
will
take
it
in
to
introducing
matters.
Fraser
I'm.
D
B
Hill
House
well,
as
mr.
Fraser
knows,
I
am
the
Minister
for
energy
in
this
country.
In
Scotland,
I
do
not
have
any
rule
in
terms
of,
in
fact
impacting
on
energy
policy
in
other
countries.
It's
a
commercial
matter
for
any
of
you,
it's
a
commercial
matter
for
any
of
us.
We
have
been
clear
throughout
this
process
that
is
a
commercial
matter
for
NU'est,
a
presiding
officer,
our
consultation
embodied
our
commitment
to
local
communities
participating
in
decisions
that
matter
to
them.
B
The
overwhelming
majority
of
respondents
were
opposed
to
the
development
of
an
unconventional
oil
and
gas
industry
in
Scotland
and
well
not
a
referendum
as
I
see.
99%
responses
were
opposed.
I've
noted
calls
that
may
be
made
by
some
groups
for
new
legislation
to
ban
fracking,
and
the
view
appears
predicated
on
the
opinion
that
the
position
we
have
adopted
on
unconventional
oil
and
gas
is
not
robust
enough.
I
am
confident,
however,
that
the
approach
we
have
adopted
is
sufficiently
robust
alike,
control
of
unconventional
oil
and
gas
development
in
line
with
our
state,
so
presiding
officer.
B
The
pursuit
of
unnecessary
legislation
would
tie
up
this
parliaments
time
in
the
face
of
other
significant
issues
such
as
brexit
and
in
coming
to
our
position.
I
sought
legal
advice
and
considered
precedents,
including
our
position
on
not
supporting
either
new
nuclear
power
stations
or
underground
coal
gasification.
The
approach
we
have
adopted
using
our
fully
devolved
planning
powers
is
to
say
to
a
robust
and
effective
ban
using
planning
policy.
B
I
really
must
make
some
progress,
but
I'll
bring
Mr
Whiteman
in
later,
I
wrote
to
Greg
Clark
Secretary
of
State
for
business,
energy
and
industrial
strategy,
setting
out
a
position
on
the
future
of
unconventional
oil
and
gas
in
Scotland
and
seeking
his
assurance
that
licensing
Paris
will
be
transferred
to
this
Parliament
as
soon
as
possible,
and
that
no
such
paragraph
by
the
UK
government
will
take
place
when
those
powers
are
finally
fully
devolved.
We
will
discharge
them
in
line
with
our
position
and
unconventional
oil
and
gas.
B
After
this
debate,
we
will
issue
a
written
policy
statement
on
our
position,
an
unconventional
oil
and
gas.
This
will
support
preparation
of
a
strategic
environmental
assessment
which
I
propose
will
commence
shortly
and
concluded
in
summer
2018.
We
will
then
formally
say
at
our
finalized
position,
which
will
be
reflected
in
future
iterations
of
Scotland's
energy
strategy
residing
officer.
A
decision
has
been
welcomed
by
many
across
Scotland,
particularly
in
those
areas
that
would
be
most
affected.
Of
course,
an
issue
that
has
stimulated
such
intense
debate.
B
There
are
some
who
do
not
support
the
position
we
have
reached,
but
listening
to
the
views
put
across
by
some,
including
those
in
the
conservative
benches,
you
would
think
we
were
talking
about
developments
taking
place
miles
away
from
any
population.
That
is
simply
not
the
case,
as
fracking
was
proposed
across
areas
of
the
densely
populated
central
Bell
to
Scotland.
Creating
employment
and
inclusive
economic
growth
will
always
be
key
priorities
for
this
government,
but
such
objectives
cannot
come
at
any
cost.
B
We
will,
of
course,
continue
to
work
with
industries
to
help
improve
spartans
competitiveness
and
economic
growth
residing
officer.
We
closely
conciliar
considered
all
the
evidence,
including
the
potential
economic
impact
from
an
unconventional
oil
and
gas
industry
under
a
central
production
scenario.
Researchers
at
KPMG
concluded
that
on
average,
at
unconventional
oil
and
gas
industry
with
just
not
point,
one
percent
I
know
he's
discards
GDP
if
fracking
was
given
the
go-ahead
and
generally
up
to
1,400
direct
indirect
and
induced
jobs
in
Scotland
at
peak
production.
B
To
put
that
in
context
and
2015
58
and
a
half
thousand
jobs
were
supported
by
the
little
carbon
and
renewable
energy
sector
in
Scotland,
generating
Turner
of
turnover
of
ten
point
five
billion
pounds.
The
offshore
oil
and
gas
sector
employs
more
than
a
hundred
thousand
people.
Kpmg
also
concluded
that
the
volume
of
natural
gas
likely
to
be
commercially
recoverable
from
unconventional
oil
and
gas
reserves
in
Scotland
would
not
have
an
impact
in
global
gas
prices.
Consequently,
there
would
be
no
noticeable
effect
on
energy
cost
for
households.
B
This
is
a
view
that
has
also
been
expressed
by
Lord
Browne,
the
former
chairman
of
oil
and
gas
operator,
Cuadrilla
resources,
exciting
officer.
The
real
risk
to
Scotland's
economy
comes
from
a
hard
brexit
Faisal
of
Island,
our
estimated
hard
brexit
threatened.
So
not
the
member
last
mr.
Frese
our
last,
but
you
might
want
to
pay
attention
to
this.
B
You
might
want
to
pay
attention
to
this
Fraser
bounder
estimate
a
heartbreak
that
threatens
to
cost
the
economy
around
11
billion
pounds
a
year
by
2030
and
result
in
80,000
fewer
jobs,
80,000
fewer
jobs
when
compared
to
remaining
members
of
the
EU
single
market
and
customs
union.
Mr.
Feder
really
should
pay
attention
to
that.
I
fully
understand.
I,
fully
understand.
Our
decision
has
disappointed
the
companies
that
receive
licences
from
the
UK
government,
including
any
US,
the
operators
of
the
Green
Smoke
petrochemical
facility
on
unconventional
oil
and
gas
extraction.
B
We
have
formed
a
different
view
to
the
earth,
but
on
their
desire
to
see
a
long-term,
sustainable
future
for
both
the
chemicals
and
refinery
businesses
at
Green's
month
we
are
agreed.
We
recognize
the
contribution
to
this
country
made
by
only
us,
and
the
chemicals
and
refinery
businesses
are
strategically
significant
assets
for
Scotland,
we'll
continue
working
with
any
us
to
understand
their
wider
business
needs
and
to
improve
their
competitiveness
before
closing
I
try
and
bring
in
mr.
Whiteman.
If
I
may
Andy.
E
Grateful
to
the
minister,
as
he
knows,
I
think
I.
Don't
doubt
the
sincerity
with
which
he
speaks
today
and
his
intention
to
to
ban
fracking.
But
does
he
accept
that
the
mechanism
that
he's
chosen
is
a
mechanism
which
is
an
executive
action
that
can
be
undone
by
any
future
government?
Even
if
there
were
a
minority
in
this
place
and
even
if
the
Parliament
as
a
whole
was
against
fracking
Paul.
B
Recognized
the
point
that
mr.
Whiteman
is
making,
but
I
would
say
to
him
this.
We
have
it
in
the
in
the
scope
of
this
Parliament
to
express
the
strong
view
here
today
in
support
of
the
government's
position,
make
it
clear
that
that
is
a
view
that
is
supported
by
the
people
of
Scotland
and
the
consultation
we've
undertaken
and
as
far
as
I
can
read.
A
B
Officer
those
who's,
those
whose
livelihood
to
the
pain
and
employment
agreements
are
important
to
us,
and
we
will
never
lose
sight
of
that
in
our
efforts
to
support
innovation
and
investment
presiding
officer,
we've
considered
the
scientific
and
economic
evidence
and
I've
engaged
in
the
debate
and
also
listened
to
the
views
of
people
across
Scotland,
something
that
conservatives
don't
appear
to
want
to
do.
The
motion
we
have
table
today,
which
I
ask
Parliament
to
support,
is
their
clear
and
robust
response
to
the
evidence
and
the
views
expressed
through
our
consultation,
presiding
officer.
B
A
D
D
Fracking
could
be
conducted
safely
in
Scotland,
providing
appropriate
safeguards
were
put
in
place.
That
is
a
view
widely
shared
by
scientists
and
those
in
industry.
The
leading
geological
expert,
professor
Rebecca
lund,
of
Strathclyde
University,
has
slammed
the
SMPS
position
as
a
and
I
quote:
uninformed
ethically
appalling
and
passing
the
buck.
D
Professor
Paul
younger
rank
and
chair
of
engineering
at
Glasgow
University,
someone
held
up
by
the
SNP
in
the
past
as
an
energy
engineering
expert
and
the
member
of
that
expert
scientific
panel
now
slammed
the
government's
position
saying
their
justifications
for
a
moratorium
where
I
quote
all
made
up
and
completely
faint.
He
said
he
felt
completely
violated
as
a
professional
following
the
announcement.
As
of
the
a
moratorium,
even
the
former
leader
of
Greenpeace
Stephen
Tyndale,
has
said.
D
The
green
movement
needs
to
have
an
urgent
rethink
over
energy
sources,
and
it
is
time
for
green
campaigners
to
stop
saying,
frack
off
and
start
saying,
frack
own.
So
here
we
have
a
Scottish
government
that
Commission's
its
own
report
from
expert
scientists,
but
then
ignores
and
treats
with
contempt.
We
have
a
body
of
scientific
opinion
in
a
second,
we
have
a
body
of
scientific
opinion,
very
clear
that
fracking
should
proceed
and
can
be
done
safely
and
that
is
also
ignored.
D
D
Freezing,
but
if
all
we're
doing
is
importing
frack
gas
from
other
jurisdictions
will
have
any
impact
on
reducing
climate
change
emissions
in
this
country,
although
that
is
very
clear-
and
that
is
where-
and
that
is
least
we
all
very
neatly
to
this
point
about
hypocrisy,
because
while
fracking
in
Scotland
is
to
be
banned
by
the
SNP,
we
will
continue
to
see
Frank
gas
from
elsewhere
imported
to
Scotland
to
heat
our
homes
and
power.
In
today,
47%
in
a
second
47
percent
of
UK
gas
demand
is
coming
from
imports.
B
He'll
have
thank
you
to
motive
Fraser
Fir,
taking
intervention.
If
we
leave
aside
the
fact
that
Scotland
produces
63
percent
the
UK's
gas
for
eight
and
a
half
per
se
in
the
population,
would
he
would
he
confirm
his?
My
understanding
is
that
imports
and
trade
policy
are
reserved
to
Yuki
government.
We
could
not
stop
imports
of
gas,
even
if
we
wanted
to,
but
it
is
a
commercial
matter
for
Neal's
he's
simply
misrepresenting
the
truth
to
the
public.
Today,
Michael.
D
D
It
would
be
if
we
were
producing
it
here
and
if
we
reduced
that
here
we
could
set
the
environmental
safeguards
not
have
them
imported
from
anywhere
in
the
world,
regardless
of
the
safeguards
that
are
put
in
place
by
signing
officer.
I.
Don't
often
quote,
trade
unionists
in
this
chamber,
but
I
do
want
to
quote
specifically
Galax
with
the
GMB
Scottish
secretary,
who
denounced
the
Scottish
Government's
decision
as
dishonest
as
hypocritical.
Adding
that
Scotland
is
importing
a
huge
amount
of
shale
gas
from
trumps
America.
D
If
the
government
wants
to
be
consistent,
it
will
now
ban
shale
gas
imports
threatening
a
huge
number
of
job
losses.
The
government
has
failed
to
explain
where
the
two
million
households
in
Scotland
using
gas
to
heat
their
homes
will
get
gas
from
in
the
future.
Designing
officer
those
on
the
Labour
benches,
Mr
Lennard
among
them,
I
notice,
he's
not
in
the
chamber
this
afternoon.
He
needs
to
be
listening
and
they
need
to
be
listening
to
what
their
trade
union
colleagues
are
telling
them.
Now
we
heard
a
lot
from
the
Scottish
government
about
their
consultation.
D
99%
of
the
responses
were
opposed,
and
yet
40
and
yet
86%
of
those
responses
were
campaign
responses
all
from
petitions
webtop,
while
environmental
groups
on
this
slide
the
minister
to
tell
us
in
his
statement
that
there
was
and
I
quote
no
social
license
to
allow
fracking
to
proceed,
given
the
level
of
public
opposition
within
the
communities
likely
to
be
affected,
deputy
presiding
officer.
This
is
a
breathtaking
statement
from
a
government
whose
ministers
have
over
the
last
decade
written
roughshod
over
local
opinion.
D
In
areas
such
as
pasture
and
Tim,
frickin,
Galloway
and
the
borders,
whether
it's
been
local
opposition
to
industrial
scale,
wind
turbine
developments
where
local
authorities
have
rejected
planning
applications
and
ministers
have
imposed
them
in
the
teeth
of
substantial
local
opposition.
This
is
an
SNP
government,
deputy
presiding
officer,
which
is
tues
different
standards,
one
for
the
central
belt
of
Scotland
and
another
for
those
living
in
rural
Scotland
and
I.
D
Invite
the
minister
to
come
with
me
and
meet
the
people
in
dunkeld
feeling
under
siege
from
large-scale
wind
turbine
developments
in
the
area
and
will
tell
them
exactly
what
they
think
about
his
views
on
social
licence
for
energy
development.
If
that's
not
a
foreign
part
of
the
story
of
government's
policy
needs
to
apply
that
across
the
board.
Don't
your
wind,
as
well
as
to
fracking
presiding
officer.
We
knew
the
SNP
stance
on
fracking
is
anti
science.
We
know
they
have
rejected
evidence-based
policymaking,
and
we
know
there
is
an
entirely
hypocritical
stance.
D
As
all
that
means
that'll
do
that
we'll
be
importing
Frank
gas
from
other
parts
in
the
world
rather
than
doing
it
here
and
we'll
be
missing
out
in
the
economic
benefits
and
jobs
that
could
be
provided
by
citing
officer
of
the
SNP.
Don't
want
to
listen
to
science
and
don't
want
to
listen
to
the
experts
if
they
want
to
listen
to
us
and
I
can
suggest
you
listen
to
those
in
their
own
party
and
they
can
start
with
their
former
deputy
leader
Jim
sellers,
who
has
said
oh
they're,
laughing
they're
laughing,
not.
D
D
A
F
You
for
citing
officer
for
many
across
this
chamber
and
this
country
this
has
been
a
long
and
hard-fought
battle
on
conventional
oil
and
gas
extraction
commonly
referred
to
as
fracking
is
an
unwanted
technology,
mr.
din
uncertainties
and
incompatible
with
Scotland's
future.
As
a
green
and
progressive
nation,
there
has
been
a
solid
mandate
to
deny
fracking
in
its
place
in
Scotland
for
over
a
year
since
Scottish
Labour's
amendment
against
fracking
was
supported
by
the
Lib
Dems
and
Green
MSPs,
making
a
parliamentary
majority.
F
This
was
a
significant
moment
in
Labour's
non-stop
pressure
on
the
SNP
to
ban
fracking
in
Scotland
and
since
then,
any
public
consultation
on
this
issue
has
echoed
that
sentiment.
No
ifs,
no
buts,
no
fracking
in
Scotland,
my
bill
proposal
received
87%
support
from
public
respondents,
a
figure
that
cannot
be
overlooked
and
the
Scottish
Government
talking
fracking
consultation
returned
an
astonishing
majority
of
99
percent
of
respondents
opposed
to
fracking.
I
would
like
to
give
credit
to
the
activist,
NGOs
unions
and
others
who
responded
to
these
consultations.
Their
tireless
efforts
and
shouts
were
heard
loud
and
clear.
F
The
Green
Party
has
already
pushed
forward
on
this
issue
as
well.
The
fact
that
the
UK
Tory
government
continues
to
disregard
these
voices
is,
in
my
view,
utterly
shocking.
Scottish
labor
joined
this
fight
for
the
sake
of
our
climate
communities,
jobs,
health
and
our
environment,
John
Ashton,
a
respected
climate
change,
adviser
to
many
said
you
can
be
in
favor
of
fixing
the
climate
or
you
can
be
in
favor
of
exploit
exploiting
shale
gas,
but
you
can't
be
in
favor
of
both.
At
the
same
time,
this
is
a
question
of
climate
justice.
F
The
pirate
Paris
agreement
included
the
effort
to
limit
warming
to
1.5
degrees
centigrade,
vital
to
the
continued
existence
of
low-lying
coastal
and
island
communities.
The
climate
science
is
indeed
irrefutable,
which
is
why
this
Tory
amendment
is
so
out
of
touch
Krystyna
figures
who
was
recently
awarded
the
Shackleton
medal
for
her
role
in
the
Paris
agreement
said
we
will
move
to
a
low-carbon
world
because
nature
forces
us
or
because
policy
will
guide
us.
If
we
wait
until
nature
forces
us,
the
cost
will
be
astronomical.
F
The
uncertainty
caused
by
the
SNP
governments
long
drawn-out
process,
although
I,
can
understand
reasons
for
it
left
everyone
in
the
dark.
As
this
Parliament
scrutinizes,
the
climate
change
bill,
the
climate
change
plan
and
the
energy
strategy,
it
is
absolutely
welcome
to
know
that
fracking
is
firmly
out
of
the
question.
The
long-term
damage
far
outweighs
any
short-term
value
that
might
be
gained,
a
value
which
has
been
significantly
overinflated
by
the
industry,
as
the
Minister
has
put
it.
The
lack
of
social
license
for
fracking
is
an
important
point.
F
F
Historically,
these
communities
have
no
reason
to
trust
the
fossil
fuel
extraction,
industry,
they're,
still
tackling
the
scarred
landscape
and
other
employment
and
environmental
issues
left
by
the
opencast
industries.
Labour
has
been
an
unrelenting
voice
against
fracking
for
well
over
a
year,
speaking
in
defense
of
our
environment
and
communities,
and
it
has
been
the
pressure
of
my
bill,
which
has
in
many
ways
helped
deliver
action
to
from
the
Scottish
Government.
My
concern
was
that
the
Scottish
government's
position
wasn't
robust
enough,
given
it
could
be
reversed
by
a
future.
F
Minister
or
government
with
ease
Labour's
amendment
today
offers
a
layer
of
protection
and
a
level
of
parliamentary
scrutiny
which
I
am
comfortable
with.
Not
only
would
there
be
public
consultation
for
the
next
review
of
the
national
planning
framework,
but
it
would
be
subject
to
a
parliamentary
vote,
and
this
is
fundamental
as
it
will
prevent
ministerial
direction
for
an
indefinite
moratorium
from
being
changed
on
a
min
serial
whim.
If
the
Labour
amendment
is
supported,
this
added
layer
of
protection
will
mean
I
will
not
be
progressing
my
bill
to
ban
fracking.
F
We
will
also
support
the
green
amendment,
which
adds
clarity
to
the
licensing
arrangements.
The
second
part
of
our
amendment
focuses
on
the
positive
alternatives
to
fracking.
It
is
vital
that
renewable
energy
is
more
robustly
supported
and
that
there
is
more
support
for
inclusive
patterns
of
ownership
in
this
sector.
Scottish
labor
stress
in
our
2016
manifesto.
We
believe
in
the
Civic
energy
future
a
future
that
grows
local
schemes
to
produce
green
energy
and
heat
for
local
youths.
F
In
my
own
region,
I
am
supporting
the
hilltop
communities
of
Warren
Lochhead
and
led
Hills
in
their
quest
for
a
sustainable
future.
The
Morlock
can
trust
stresses
that
they
want
a
future
not
dependent
on
community
benefit
handouts
from
large
corporations
and
estates.
There
are
also
many
municipal
models
of
ownership.
Nottingham's
Robin
Hood
energy
enables
a
citywide
vision
to
be
brought
to
life.
Public
ownership
of
renewables
is
supported
by
Scottish
labor,
as
it
is
both
Scottish
government,
and
it
would
be
helpful
if
the
Minister
could
give
any
more
detail
of
this.
F
In
his
closing
remarks,
these
models,
coupled
with
an
inclusive
Scottish
investment
bank,
will
drive
a
renewable
energy
future
which
belongs
to
everyone.
The
Lib
Dems
amendment
is
positive
in
this
respect,
and
we
will
also
be
supporting
it
to
give
certainty
to
our
communities
and
support
to
our
renewables
energy
industry.
Scottish
labor
will
hopefully
join
with
the
SNP
greens
and
Lib
Dems
to
ensure
a
resounding
parliamentary
vote
against
fracking,
which
will
then
never
happen
in
Scotland.
I
moved
the
amendment
in
my
name.
A
G
Thank
You
deputy
presiding
officer-
and
it
gives
me
great
pleasure-
to
stand
in
Parliament
today
in
support
of
the
Scottish
government's
motion
and
also
moving
an
amendment
that
will
make
the
ban
on
fracking
legally
watertight
Greens
have
opposed
fracking
from
the
start,
and
we
welcome
the
consensus
that
has
grown
between
progressive
parties
in
this
chamber
over
the
years
and
today
is
an
historic
moment.
A
turning
point
in
our
story.
Since
the
Industrial
Revolution,
we've
fueled
our
progress
on
fossils
laid
down
millions
of
years
ago
before
humans
even
existed.
G
But
today
we
mark
the
beginning
of
the
end
of
that
fossil
fuel
age
and
welcome
the
next
chapter
in
our
story,
where
humankind
thrives
within
the
ecological
limits
of
our
planet
and
to
shield
ourselves
from
runaway
climate
change.
Today,
we
must
leave
four-fifths
of
known
fossil
fuel
reserves
in
the
ground,
but
fracking,
of
course,
goes
beyond
even
the
known
reserves.
Exploiting
fossil
fuels
that
are
not
even
on
the
carbon
balance
sheet
yet
so
to
frack
would
not
only
put
the
brake
on
climate
progress,
but
to
stick
us
in
reverse.
G
Fracking
is
a
toxic
end
of
the
fossil
fuel
age,
while
the
main
course
of
coal
was
devoured
decades
ago.
The
frackers
want
to
return
to
blighted
communities
and
lick
the
plate
over
and
over
again,
and
unlike
the
US
we've
already
shut
down
our
coal
electricity
generation.
So
investing
in
frack
gas
has
the
potential
to
displace
not
coal
but
renewables,
and
we
certainly
don't
need
to
be
importing
energy
policies
and
Donald
Trump
blown
in
on
the
hot
air
of
murder,
Fraser
and
Jim
Sellars.
G
These
forms
of
extreme
energy
are
a
distraction
from
the
vision
and
investment
needed
to
transform
our
energy
system,
so
one
which
is
infinitely
renewable
decentralized,
democratized
and
smart,
and
our
biggest
economic
opportunities
in
a
in
energy
are
in
building
on
the
offshore
oil
and
gas
expertise
of
the
past
to
commercialize
the
offshore
renewable
technologies
of
today
and
tomorrow.
The
risks
that
the
fracking
technologies
pose
to
the
climate
and
to
communities
far
outweigh
the
economic
benefits
that
they
could
ever
deliver.
It's
just
not
worth
it.
G
Professor
John
Underhill
heriot-watt,
University's
chief
scientists
describe
the
economic
opportunity
of
fracking
as
over
height
due
to
the
physical
reality
of
the
complexities
of
our
geology
and
the
communities
on
the
front
line
in
areas
already
licensed
for
unconventional
gas
know
what
the
impacts
would
be
in
2012
between
sterling
and
Falkirk.
A
coal
bed,
methane
planning
application
was
submitted
for
just
a
couple
of
dozen
wells
and,
alongside
this
processing
infrastructure,
to
exploit
vast
licensed
areas.
G
But
in
public
meetings
the
developer
came
clean
on
the
potential
for
over
600
Wells,
locally
sterilizing
areas
needed
for
new
housing,
bringing
noise,
air
and
water
pollution
risks
and
landscape
impacts.
It
was
quite
clear
back
then,
that
the
planning
system
was
failing
with
strategic,
unconventional
gas
developments
being
assessed
against
old
planning
policies
for
gravel
pits.
So
is
right
that
the
Scottish
government
brought
in
a
temporary
moratorium
on
decisions
through
a
letter
to
planning
authorities.
G
There
simply
is
no
place
in
policy
or
on
the
ground
for
fracking
in
Scotland.
Finally,
presiding
officer,
I'd
like
to
pay
tribute
to
all
those
who've
written
letters
and
scientific
papers
ran
street
stalls
and
public
meetings,
petition,
neighbors
and
grow
networks
of
Concerned
communities
across
Scotland,
Britain
and
the
wider
world.
These
activists
and
communities
have
demanded
the
truth
and
they've
got
it,
and
I'd
also
like
to
pay
tribute
to
politicians.
Who've
listened
and
acted
from
councillors,
MSP
such
as
Allison
Johnston,
Claudia
Beamish
and
the
minister
himself.
G
A
H
That
said,
I
hope
Parliament
will
also
support
the
amendments
in
Lodge
by
myself,
Claudia,
Beamish
and
Mark
Russell,
all
I
believe
will
help
provide
further
confidence
about
the
longer-term
robustness
of
the
ban,
while
also
setting
it
in
the
wider
context
of
the
energy
strategy
we
need.
If
we
have
to
meet
our
climate
and
other
objectives
going
forward,
it
can
I
also
take
the
opportunity
to
pay
tribute
to
Claudia
Bemis
for
her
efforts.
H
Our
on
this
issue,
I
think
mark
bicycles,
right,
enjoying
attention
to
the
wider
consensus
that
had
built
up
over
time,
but
I'm
in
no
doubt
that
her
members
bill,
which
I've
supported
from
the
outset,
played
a
key
role
in
keeping
the
Minister's
feet
to
the
fire.
As
for
the
final
amendment,
I
simply
do
not
accept
Tory
accusations
that
a
ban
on
fracking
is
either
anti-science
or
anteater
anti-jobs.
H
It
is
neither
the
scientific
evidence
throws
down
significant
challenges.
Were
we
to
go
down
the
route
of
fracking
in
Scotland?
These
are
challenges
we
would
struggle
to
overcome.
We
would
also
come
at
a
cost,
as
the
minister
said,
not
least
in
jobs
in
other
areas.
I
appreciate
that
the
SNP
ministers
have
done
themselves
no
favors
in
the
past
and
taking
decisions
that
appear
to
have
no
scientific
underpinning.
Indeed,
I've
been
critical
of
them
for
doing
so.
Yet
the
same
simply
cannot
be
said
in
this
instance.
H
The
steps
taken
to
weigh
up
the
evidence
in
relation
to
environmental,
health,
social
and
other
potential
impacts
of
fracking
have
been
extensive
and
did
mr.
won't
realize
even
stands
accused
of
having
taken
the
scenic
route
in
reaching
his
decision.
Nevertheless,
the
decision
has
been
arrived
at
following
a
process
that
few
can
argue
has
not
demonstrable
engaged
experts,
stakeholders
and
the
way
the
public
99%
of
responses
to
the
consultation
support
some
form
of
ban
on
fracking
in
Scotland.
An
overwhelming
figure.
H
I
am,
however,
a
little
uncertain
what
the
consequences
might
be
of
the
ministers
repeated
references
in
his
statement
to
fracking.
Having
quote
no
social
license,
he
may
need
to
spell
it
exactly
what
is
meant
by
this
case
concept
and
his
murder
Fraser
pointed
out
the
the
opponents
to
wind
farms,
and
perhaps
other
energy
developments
will
be
rubbing
their
hands
at
the
prospect
of
what
a
social
license.
It
might
mean
The
ministers
to
avoid
making
you
rod
for
his
own
back
and
making
delivery
of
the
way
their
energy
strategy
more
difficult.
As
a
consequence,
explicit.
H
Their
parameters
of
what
his
social
license
is
are
needed.
They
should
not
go
distract
from
the
case
for
it
banning
fracking
Scotland
on
environmental
grounds.
We
know
that
she'll
gas
is
a
high
carbon
energy
source
emitting
large
quantities
of
carbon
dioxide
emitting
the
science
of
global
warming,
the
maths
of
our
emissions
and
our
pledged
to
limit
the
temperature
increases
to
below
two
percent
must
lead
us
to
conclude
that
opening
up
the
new
carbon
front
is
unwise,
unwanted
and
unnecessary.
H
The
committee
and
climate
change
is
argued,
should
anoint
your
petroleum
industry
be
established
in
the
UK
angle
quickly.
This
would
have
the
potential
for
significant
impact
on
UK
emissions.
It
also
found
that
accommodating
additional
missions
from
shale
gas
production
within
our
carbon
targets
would
quote,
require
significant
and
potentially
difficult
offsetting
effort
elsewhere.
Even
the
UK's
own
former
chief
scientist,
Professor
David
McCauley,
stated
if
a
country
brings
any
additional
fossil
fuel
reserve
into
production,
then
in
the
absence
of
strong
climate
change
policies,
it
is
likely
that
this
production
would
increase
cumulative
emissions.
H
In
the
long
run,
this
increase
would
work
against
global
efforts
on
climate
change.
In
addition,
as
my
amendment
makes
clear,
a
commitment
to
fracking
would
almost
inevitably
distract
attention
and
divert
the
best
investment
from
the
development
of
the
range
of
renewable
energy
and
storage
technologies.
We
will
need
to
deliberate
a
carbonized,
sustainable
and
secure
energy
system
and
future
along
with
energy
efficiency
and
demand
reduction
strategies.
These
are
the
areas
where
we
must
be
looking
to
focus
our
efforts,
harness
our
competitive
advantage
and
secure
the
jobs
and
wealth
creation
that
come
with
it.
H
Ons
is
showing
that
last
year,
low
carbon
industries
in
Scotland
generated
ten
point:
seven
billion
in
turnover
supported
forty
three
and
a
half
thousand
jobs,
both
direct
and
in
the
supply
chain
in
delivered
over
10
million
pounds
of
community
benefit,
while
the
renewable
electricity
sectors
made
tremendous
progress
in
recent
years,
however,
much
work
still
needs
to
be
done
to
decarbonize
our
overall
energy
supply,
particularly
in
heating
transport.
Given
this
fracking
is
a
distraction
we
can
ill
afford
to
have,
of
course,
been
concerns
raised
about
just
how
robust
the
proposed
ban
on
fracking
actually
is.
H
The
current
proposals
use
the
planning
Paris
to
ensure
any
applications
for
unconventional
oil
and
gas
exploitation
are
called
in
by
ministers
and
will
be
rejected,
like
others
got
his
little
Democrats
want
to
see
future
licensing
powers
devolved
to
this
Parliament
and
used
to
reinforce
the
clear
policy
intention.
Meantime
I
think
there
is
a
strong
argument
for
building
the
key
points
of
the
energy
strategy,
including
the
ban
on
fracking
into
the
next
national
planning
framework,
as
proposed
in
the
labor
and
green
amendments,
or
no
government
of
Parliament
can
bind
the
hands
of
their
successors.
H
Any
future
government
intent
on
moving
away
from
the
current
ban
should
face
significant
obstacles
in
doing
so,
including
securing
support
from
this
Parliament,
including
of
the
policy
in
the
planning
framework
I
believe,
would
provide
additional
reassurance
to
those
who
have
been
expressing
concern
and
also
help
reinforce
the
effect
of
the
effectiveness
of
this
ban
as
then
the
site.
While
ministers
are
reviewing
the
planning
framework,
they
may
wish
to
address
the
point
raised
by
RSPB
and
they
are
beefing
giving
all
that
has
been
said
today
about
meeting
our
climate
change,
chart
targets
and
environmental
impacts.
H
It
is
passing
strange
that
the
government's
planning
policy
stole
Court
recognizes
the
National
benefit
of
the
indigenous
call
production
in
maintaining
a
diverse
energy
mix
that
we
were
presiding
officer.
I
understand
the
frustration
felt
by
many
at
the
time
it's
taken
to
reach
this
point,
but
the
community
is
facing
the
prospect
of
fracking
the
way
it
has
been
an
anxious
one.
Hopefully
that
uncertainty
is
coming
to
an
end.
I
look
forward
to
Parliament
reiterating
its
firm
stance
on
fracking
at
decision
time
this
evening
and
I
move
the
moment
in
my
knee.
A
I
You
saying
officer
I'm
pleased
to
contribute
to
this
debate
today,
not
least
because
it's
been
a
contentious
issue
in
my
for
at
least
constituency
since
there
in
2012,
when
fracking
and
forged
district
first
appeared
in
the
data.
Of
course,
coal
bed
methane
extraction
in
the
area
had
already
started
a
which
had
come
in
under
the
radar
was
planning
permissions
been
granted
by
Council
officers
under
delegated
powers
before
it
ever
appeared
on
a
forked,
Council
Planning
Committee
agenda.
However,
I
don't
want
to
dwell
on
the
specifics
of
the
planning
system
in
Fargo
district.
I
Today
it
could
take
a
while,
as
my
speaking
time
is
short,
and
for
that
reason,
I
will
not
be
taking
any
interventions
either.
So
fracking
cannot
and
will
not
take
place
in
Scotland.
That's
the
phrase
the
Energy
Minister
used
in
a
statement
in
this
chamber
just
a
few
weeks
ago,
and
it's
something
many
thousands
of
my
constituents
and
campaigners
across
Scotland
have
been
hoping
to
hear
for
some
time.
This
announcement
came
as
a
great
relief
to
those
in
communities
where
the
threat
of
fracking
has
been
on
their
doorsteps
or
under
their
houses.
I
Understandably,
frustration
and
emotions
have
run
high
throughout
the
debate
or
an
unconventional
oil
and
gas
server.
The
consultation
process,
the
various
ministerial
ministerial
statements
along
the
way,
and
today's
debate
proves
that
this
government
has
taken
the
rate
and
necessary
steps
to
bring
about
the
strict
and
effective
ban
needed
to
protect
our
environment.
That
being
said,
as
we
can
see
from
today's
amendments,
there's
still
those
who
are
pushing
for
more
to
be
done.
I
Hevel
is
very
little
in
the
green
labor
and
Lib
Dem
amendments
that
I
can
disagree
with
a
the
call
by
Mark,
Russell
and
Claudia
Bemis
to
incorporate
the
government's
position
in
the
next.
Its
edition
of
the
national
planning
framework
is,
in
my
view,
imperative
and
I
would
be
keen
to
hear
in
the
summing
up
the
minister.
I
If
the
minister
will
ensure
its
inclusion
in
NP,
for
there
are,
of
course,
calls
from
environmental
NGOs
to
go
even
further,
and
perhaps
this
should
be
careful
what
they
wish
for
I
believe
a
bill
to
ban
fracking
is
not
necessary,
expedient
or
likely
to
provide
any
practical
benefits
over
the
approach
the
Scottish
government
has
already
adopted.
Additionally,
of
course,
any
legislation
is
open
to
legal
challenge
and
can
be
overturned
by
future
Parliament's.
Taking
the
current
approach
of
an
indefinite
moratorium
is
effective
in
halting
fracking
and
ucg
first
avoid
in
any
unnecessary
and
costly
legal
challenges.
I
There
are
also
those
on
the
other
side
of
the
argument,
as
we've
heard
already
this
afternoon,
who
claimed
that
this
is
a
step
too
far
and
is
going
against
the
potential
economic
gain
we
could
perhaps
benefit
from
this
argument
could
be
a
tad
academic.
If
expert
professor
John
Underhill,
heriot-watt,
chief
scientist
and
professor
of
exploration,
Geoscience,
is
correct
and
seen
that
large-scale,
onshore
fracking
would
be
unviable
in
the
UK
anyway
and
would
have
a
negligible
impact
upon
energy
traces.
I
He
bases
that
argument
on
the
fact
that
the
substrata
of
the
UK
is
compressed
because
of
a
squeeze
millions
of
years
ago
between
the
Alps
and
the
Mid
Atlantic
structure
at
the
time
and
the
compression
means
the
substrata
is
undulating
and
we
be
possibly
making
effective
drilling
locations
questionable.
In
addition,
Yuki
does
not
lie
flat
on
the
global
surface,
but
at
an
angle
adding
complications
to
the
undulating
structure,
which
professor
Underhill
states
means
the
UK's
rocks
will
be
harder
to
draw
through
than
those
in
the
US
which
are
comparatively
simple.
To
do
so.
I
I
would
urge
members
on
the
Torrey
benches
to
reprocess
it
under
those
who
search
disappointing
though
it
may
be
to
them.
So
it
would
seem
that
any
us
another
prospective
investors
may
be
55
million
years
too
late,
at
least
in
Scotland
fact,
aside,
an
officer
this
chamber
to
be
may
well
be
55
million
years
too
late.
I
Members
will
no
doubt
be
aware
that
the
arrangements
refinery
and
petrochemical
sites
associated
was
in
my
forty's
constituency,
and
my
constituents
have
more
direct
connection
with
these
industries
than
most
for
decades.
These
communities
have
sat
cheek-by-jowl
with
industry
and
in
pleased
that
the
government
has
listened
to
their
concerns,
as
well
as
taking
into
consideration
the
needs
of
Industry
and
made
the
right
decision
based
on
the
evidence
presented
to
them.
I
However,
presiding
officer
I
believe
it's
also
incumbent
upon
government
to
support
our
industries
and
the
jobs
associated
with
them
and
encourage
further
diversification
into
more
modern,
sustainable
and
renewable
technologies.
The
states
and
Grangemouth
run
by
any
US
and
Petronius
currently
employ
around
thirteen
hundred
and
fifty
people
with
this
figure
expected
to
rise
to
then
sixteen
hundred
and
fifty
with
the
acquisition
by
a
newest
of
the
forties
pipeline
system.
I
Additionally,
statistics
from
Scottish
Enterprise
and
chemical
sciences,
Scotland
suggested
in
forged
district
industry
in
Grange
meth
supports
over
4,000
jobs
directly
and
indirectly,
and
many
more
across
Scotland
and
I'm.
Confident
the
Scottish
Government
will
continue
to
support
these
industries
in
the
coming
years
and
decades.
Trading
officer
as
time
is
short
I'll
close
by
saying.
If
this
effective
ban
is
approved
by
Parliament
this
evening,
we
will
have
certainty
from
today.
There
will
be
no
fracking
in
Scotland.
That's
good
news
for
my
constituents.
Good
news
with
regard
to
climate
change
and
good
news
for
Scotland.
Thank
you.
I
J
You,
deputy
presiding
officer
I
refer
to
my
register
of
interest
in
relation
to
a
smart
energy
company
based
in
England.
Today's
debate
is
important
for
a
number
of
reasons,
including
the
significant
missed
opportunity
for
the
economy
that
the
ban
on
fracking
represents
and
the
wider
concerns
that
the
ban
of
fracking
gives
rise
to
in
terms
of
how
this
government
makes
policy
and
whether
it
is
really
acting
in
the
best
interest
of
Scotland
or
in
the
narrow
political
interests
of
the
SNP.
J
Let
me
start
with
the
economic
case
in
support
of
fracking,
which
is
clear
and
compelling
kpmg's
economic
impact
assessment
has
shown
that
up
to
4.6
billion
in
additional
gross
value
added
output
could
be
generated
by
developing
a
fracking
industry
here
in
Scotland.
This
could
create
more
than
3000
highly
skilled
jobs
and
bring
four
billion
pounds
in
additional
types
receipts
to
the
Scottish
economy,
which
could
be
spent
on
vital
public
services.
Here
in
Scotland,
I,
I,
wouldn't
I'm,
sorry
I've
got
very
limited
time.
J
Communities
across
Scotland
would
benefit
from
these
new
jobs,
as
well
as
millions
of
pounds
of
new
community
investments.
The
Minister
highlighted
that
the
economic
benefit
fracking
would
contribute,
in
his
words,
just
0.1
percent
to
GDP
each
year,
but
let
me
remind
him
that
scones
economy
registered
negative
growth
in
2016
and
the
latest
figures
show
economic
growth
of
0.1
percent,
the
same
level
of
growth
that
will
be
contributed
by
fracking.
So,
with
this
economic
backdrop,
the
boost
that
could
come
from
fracking,
the
boost
that
would
give
to
the
Scottish
economy
should
be
welcomed
by
the
SNP.
J
Instead,
however,
as
fracking
industries
have
developed
elsewhere
in
the
UK
and
across
the
world,
the
SNP
has
decided
to
block
the
investment,
the
skilled
employment
technology,
development
and
academic
research
that
this
new
industry
would
bring
to
Scotland.
The
scientific
and
environmental
analysis
to
support
fracking
is
also
clear.
The
Scottish
Government's
own
expert
scientific
panel
concluded
the
technology
exists
to
allow
the
safe
extraction
of
reserves
subject
to
robust
regulation,
public
health
bodies
and
other
parts
of
the
UK
have
concluded.
The
potential
risks
to
public
health
associated
with
extraction
are
low.
J
If
operation
operations
are
properly
run
and
regulated.
Nor
can
the
SNP
credibly
claim
that
the
fracking
ban
is
based
on
environmental
concerns
when
Scotland
continues
to
import
40
thousand
barrels
of
shale
gas
from
the
US
every
day,
as
the
Royal
Society
of
Embera
has
quite
rightly
pointed
out,
the
global
carbon
footprint
of
the
gases
of
Scotland
imports
as
power
far
higher
than
onshore
fracking
in
Scotland.
J
If
this
government
really
wanted
to
test
the
safety
of
fracking
in
an
evidence
lab
process,
it
could
have
run
a
series
of
pilot
studies
to
assess
the
safety
and
environmental
impact.
Instead,
however,
rather
than
follow
an
evidence
led
approach,
rather
than
follow
the
clear
advice
of
scientists
and
experts,
the
ESPY
has
decided
to
hide
behind
a
deeply
flawed
consultation
process,
just
as
política
staff
I
is
politically
expedient
and
populous
decision
to
ban
fracking,
and
this
is
why
the
espy's
ban
of
fracking
gives
rise
to
wider
concerns
about
how
this
government
makes
policy
policymaking.
J
Taiked,
headlines,
policies
lacking
analysis
or
supporting
evidence
and
policy
announced
announcements
to
meet
populous
demands
have
become
the
hallmark
of
this
government.
We
have
seen
the
ban
on
GM
crops
a
policy
decision
made
without
any
scientific
advice.
The
proposed
citizens,
citizens
income,
a
policy
that
the
espys
own
economic
advisors
have
warned
against
but
is
being
pursued
for
populist
reasons.
The
proposed
nationalized
energy
company
announced
to
attract
headlines
at
the
ESPY
conference,
but
again
without
any
analysis
of
how
it
will
work.
J
Deputy
presiding
officer,
the
list
of
SMP
policy
failures
is
long,
and
this
banner
fracking
is
just
the
latest
example
of
the
SMP
making
policy
decisions
based
on
his
own
narrow
political
interests.
It
is
no
time
for
this
government
to
start
acting
in
the
best
interest
of
Scotland
and
deputy
presiding
officer.
It
looks
like
I
have
finished
within
the
time
available.
It
leaves
me
just
to
support
the
amendment
in
Mordor,
Fraser's
name.
Thank
you.
K
Clear
big,
thank
you
very
much
presiding
officer.
As
we've
heard,
the
technology
around
fracking
is
complicated,
but
the
message
today
is
very
simple:
virtually
no
one
in
Scotland
wants
it,
especially
when
it
could
take
place
literally
in
your
own
backyard
and
that's
the
issue
from
my
constituents.
Well,
as
the
Scottish
government
has
been
working
and
leading
the
way
in
developing
renewable
energy,
we
have
a
Tory
government
that
has
been
working
against
renewables
at
every
single
tongue
and,
let's
look
at
the
people
speaking
out
about
us.
K
Every
charity
or
lobbying
organization,
with
an
interest
in
the
environment
is
today
breathing
out
a
tremendous
sense
of
relief,
presiding
officer
model
freezer
will
frack
on
to
your
house
and
build
a
nuclear
power
station
in
your
back
garden.
That's
Tory
environmental
policy,
but
from
the
South
line,
action
against
unconventional
gas
to
the
World
Wildlife
Fund
to
the
Friends
of
the
Earth
to
frak
off
unison
Scotland
in
the
transition
network.
K
That
is
a
genuine
delight
about
the
outcome
of
the
courage
of
the
Scottish
government
to
take
the
decision
to
prevent
the
developers
from
destroying
our
beautiful
landscapes
polluting
our
water
table.
There
isn't
to
get
rid
of
the
mess
any
convincing
economic
case,
in
spite
of
what
those
say
who
are
promoting
fracking
and
my
constituency.
The
economic
impact
of
brexit,
which
for
social
annex
of
council
could
be
as
much
as
1.3
billion
pounds
lost
to
the
local
economy,
far
outweighs
any
economic
benefit
from
fracking.
K
Under
my
constituents,
homes
in
Hamilton
:
stone
house
is
a
strong
movement
led
by
that
the
South
Atlantic
shield
against
unconventional
gas
and
I
had
many
many
representations
from
my
constituents.
The
public
certainly
responded
to
the
calls
reviews,
when
the
second
largest
consultation
ever
run
by
the
Scottish
government
took
place.
A
nation
built
on
a
social
contract
with
its
people,
presiding
officer,
is
a
nation
that
is
reflective
of
its
people.
There
was
a
total
of
60,000
535,
valid
responses
and
99%.
K
Yes,
99
percent
were
opposed
to
fracking
the
people
in
South
line
action
across
Scotland
to
deep
concerns
about
the
development
of
fracking,
and
why
and
which
is
why
the
Scottish
government
put
in
place
a
moratorium.
While
we
gathered
the
evidence
needed
and
whether
the
Minister
took
the
scenic
route
or
not
I'd.
Rather,
he
took
the
connector
it
and
that's
or
it
I
believe
he
has
taken.
The
judgement
has
no
clear.
We
could
not
and
will
not
pursue
fracking
without
absolute
confidence
that
it
could
not
under
Maine
Public
Health
or
climate
change
targets.
K
More
importantly,
my
constituents
have
made
themselves
clear.
They
said
no
to
fracking
and
I
would
like
to
pay
tribute
to
those
constituents
to
the
South
Atlantic
sure
against
unconventional
gas
group
who
I
had
great
pleasure
in
meeting
in
many
occasions,
but
certainly
here
in
this
Parliament
a
few
months
ago,
to
help
them
hand
over
their
completed
consultations
to
the
minister.
It
was
public
action
done
in
a
positive
way
and
they
were
here
to
take
our
opportunity.
K
We
are
developing
global
reports,
identify
evidence
of
increased
cancers,
respiratory
and
cardiovascular
disease
impacts
on
reproductive
health
and
fetal
development
impacts
on
the
nervous
system,
skin
problems,
nausea
and
vomiting,
abdominal
pain,
headaches,
dizziness
eye
and
floor
irritation
and
nosebleeds.
That
would
give
ear
nose,
bleed
just
written
a
presiding
officer,
because
that's
not
what
my
constituents
want
and
I
backs
on
100%
presiding
officer,
I
applaud
the
Scottish
Government
and
their
Scottish
Parliament.
If
we
take
this
decision
today,
as
a
unified
group
with
maybe
one
exception,
then
I
think
that's
something
we
should
be
incredibly
proud
of.
K
We
are
putting
our
constituents
first,
we
have
put
another
environment,
first
repeat
in
our
community
first.
This
is
a
huge
one
for
us.
It's
a
huge
one
for
the
anti-fracking
movement
who
have
been
working
for
at
least
six
years.
I
I
know
off
on
this
decision.
The
Scottish
government
has
taken
the
correct
approach,
presiding
officer.
They
have
lessened
to
the
evidence
they
have
lessened
to
the
experts.
They
have
lessened
to
our
colleagues
across
the
chamber,
but,
more
importantly,
presiding
officer.
They
have
lessened
to
the
people
and
that
people
have
spoken.
L
You
presiding
officer,
I
very
much
welcome
the
opportunity
to
speak
in
this
afternoon's
debate.
I
am
pleased
that
Scottish
government
has
reached
a
decision
to
extend
moratorium
on
fracking
of
unconventional
oil
and
gas
for
a
number
of
reasons.
This
has
been
an
interesting
debate
over
the
last
few
years,
and
I
have
been
pleased
to
work
alongside
campaigners
who
have
argued
that
we
should
not
exploit
the
source
of
energy
citing
environmental
health
and
climate
change
concerns.
I
was
not
convinced
by
arguments
brought
forward
by
those
who
favor
fracking
they
in
any
more
than
I
am
today.
L
Fracking
first
came
to
my
attention
when
I
laid
on
environment
issues,
leave
a
party
I
came
to
the
issue
willing
to
engage
and
the
campaign's
will
in
that
infancy
led
a
national
label
by
friends
of
the
earth.
The
briefing
from
the
RAC
today
presents
the
different
arguments
around
fracking.
There
are
a
lot
of
uncertainties
around
the
practice
at
the
early
stages.
Applications
were
going
through
the
local
planning
process
where
decisions
were
often
delegated,
and
there
was
a
recognized
confusion
and
a
lack
of
consistency
over
a
decisions
been
taken.
L
At
that
point,
the
industry
was
at
risk
of
developing
with
very
little
scrutiny
or
accountability.
It
was
interesting
to
look
back
at
the
official
reports
from
then
when
the
then
government
minister
was
often
a
VESA
of
non-committal
and
reluctant
to
take
action,
and
it
has
taken
a
lot
of
conviction
from
campaigners
to
get
us
to
this
point.
I
accept
that
the
government
wished
to
be
thought
out,
but
we
have
had
years
of
uncertainty
for
communities
and
the
industry.
L
Initially,
I
met
with
environment
organizations,
local
communities
and
the
industry.
I
was
always
cleared
about
the
unacceptable
risks
to
the
region
to
my
region.
If
this
practice
was
to
go
ahead,
it
is
impossible
to
compare
the
experience
internationally
with
those
predicted
in
Scotland.
Many
argued
that
the
low
cost
of
gas
in
America
due
to
exploitation
of
unconventional
gas
could
be
replicated
here,
but
that
was
to
ignore
the
predicted
higher
cost
of
extraction
of
Scotland
for
their
environmental
standards
are
higher
and
the
export
market
is
different.
L
I
also
have
concerns
over
population
density
in
the
targeted
areas,
largely
former
cold
filled
areas
where
concerns
had
also
raised
over
drain
stability
and
risk
to
water
quality.
The
economic
benefits
to
local
areas
are
often
exaggerated.
As
the
initial
investment
of
establishing
the
infrastructure
that
are
then
few
employment
opportunities.
There
is
also
the
prospect
of
licenses
being
issued
an
exploratory
work,
beginning,
along
with
the
accompanying
disruption
for
communities,
for
then
to
result
in
very
little
results,
as
it
is
only
question
marks
over
the
potential
source
of
energy.
L
The
evidence
concerning
the
rest
of
the
environment
and
health
were
always
inconclusive
and
could
not
carry
the
confidence
of
communities.
These
factors
held
J's
uncertainty
for
communities
which
are
over
years
carried
the
legacy
of
coal
mining,
an
industry
which,
while
bringing
benefits,
left
a
pure
health
legacy
and
to
many
cases
I,
was
also
concerned
about
the
potential
for
a
ucg
which
was
proposed
for
the
1st
of
force.
A
busy
stretch
of
water
was
commercial
as
well
as
increasingly
environmental
protections
operating
and
I
urged.
L
The
government
to
include
this
in
the
initial
moratorium
and
I
was
pleased
that
they
responded
positively
and
I'm
going
on
to
strengthen
that.
I
welcome
the
Minister
statement
before
recess,
but
I
thought
he
could
have
been
firmer
and
some
of
his
reasoning,
which
would
give
greater
confidence
to
this
decision.
He
spoke
about
a
lack
of
a
social
licence
for
unconventional
oil
and
gas
to
be
taken
forward
at
this
time,
reflecting
the
significant
numbers
of
responses
received.
There
are
two
things
I
want
to
highlight
about
this
and
I
believe
us.
L
The
comments
made
weslia
MacArthur
earlier
over
his
concerns
about
the
use
of
social
licence
and
also
I,
feel
the
use
of
at
this
time
raises
some
concerns
and
the
Minister
will
be
aware
of
the
continuing
campaign.
Emails
asking
for
a
future
legislative
solution.
The
argument
that
the
moratorium
can
be
reversed
as
well
made
believe
that
Labour's
amendment
today
can
provide
greater
security
and
certainty.
L
Also,
the
argument
opposing
the
exploitation
of
unconventional
oil
and
gas
can
be
strongly
made
on
the
basis
of
scientific
evidence
and
well.
The
public
consultation
was
important
and
very
valuable.
The
minister
could
have
been
stronger
and
setting
out
the
environmental
challenges
we
face
if
we
are
to
meet
our
long-term
and
in
turn
interim
climate
targets,
but
I
also
recognized
the
challenges
in
providing
for
Scotland's
energy
needs.
Reducing
our
over
reliance
on
fossil
fuels
and
investing
more
into
renewables
is
crucial
to
our
future,
both
in
terms
of
meeting
our
energy
neurons
and
our
climate
change
targets.
L
But
this
is
not
easy
as
a
demand
for
energy
continues,
both
domestically
and
in
our
economy.
The
considerable
difficulties
for
our
energy
market
of
breaks
that
can't
be
underestimated,
and
energy,
security
and
affordability
are
key
issues
going
forward.
I
am
glad
that
the
exploitation
of
unconventional
oil
and
gas
will
not
play
a
part
in
tackling
these
challenges
in
Scotland,
but
while
these,
but
but
these
are
still
challenges
that
to
be
made,
but
we
can
also
see
opportunities
for
us
to
invest
and
our
feet
in
our
country's
future.
N
Presiding
officer,
the
Scottish
Government's
four-month
public
consultation
resulted
in
sixty
thousand
five
hundred
and
thirty-five
responses.
The
second
largest
response
to
public
consultation.
99%
of
these
responses
were
opposed
to
fracking
and
less
than
1%
in
favour.
That
level
of
response
is
overwhelming
and
a
clear
indicator
of
support
from
the
vast
majority
of
people
to
move
forward
with
a
ban
on
fracking,
it
is
impossible
to
argue
that
public
wants
anything
to
do
with
it.
N
In
Scotland,
hydraulic
fracturing
or
fracking
is
a
well
stimulation
technique
in
which
water
sand
and
chemicals
or
fracking
fluid
are
pumped
underground
at
high
pressure
to
create
fissures
and
remove
the
natural
gas.
Well,
it
sounds
simple.
On
paper,
the
fracking
process
runs
the
risk
of
triggering
hazards
such
as
earthquakes
and
contaminating
surface
water.
Fracking
also
produces
waste
that
is
difficult
to
dispose
of
and
needs
its
own
disposal
site,
taking
and
ruining
even
more
land
and
well
such
large
areas
that
easier
to
accommodate
and
are
more
readily
available
in
the
vast
regions
of
the
US.
N
M
N
April
2011
the
people
of
northwest
England
were
shaken
awake.
The
local
people
read
in
the
papers
the
next
day
that
there
was
in
fact
an
earthquake.
It
had
occurred.
The
same
week,
hydraulic
fracturing,
began
about
a
mile
and
a
half
away,
and
those
who
experienced
the
earthquake
responded
with
shock
that
had
never
been
asked
quakes
in
the
region
as
far
as
anyone
knew,
and
it
did
not
appear
to
be
a
natural
occurrence.
Ultimately,
it
was
connected
with
fracturing
occurring
kilometers
below
the
surface.
N
Mistakes
were
Scotland,
also
bring
fracking
and
the
potential
problems
that
occur
that
accompanies
that
simply
to
learn
the
same
lesson,
and
my
answer
simply
is
no.
Rather
than
subjecting
our
constituents
to
the
risk
of
poisonous
water
and
avoidable
earthquakes,
we
need
to
ban
fracking
as
mike
is
thickening.
Colleagues.
Well,
no
I
believe
fracking
is
no
place
place
in
Scotland.
If
coal
bed
methane
extraction
were
to
occur
within
my
constituency,
the
beautiful
landscape
landscape
would
be
forever
marred
and
both
Musselburgh
in
Midlothian
north
we'd
run
the
risk
of
contaminated
water
and
ruin
soil.
N
Meanwhile,
the
Tories
claim
that
they're
in
favour
of
green
and
environmental
initiatives
yet
they're
in
favour
of
pumping
chemicals
into
the
air.
How
can
one
argue
they
want
to
protect
the
environment,
whether
in
favor
of
fracking,
but
are
they
refusing
to
recognize
the
damages
that
fracking
causes
or
do
they
honestly
believe
it
is
a
long
good,
long
term
investment,
and
if
the
Chile
can
freeze
confused
and
believe
fracking
is
a
solid
investment?
Let
me
spread
some
light
on
the
matter.
N
There's
actually
little
point
to
fracking
in
general,
but
once
possibly
seem
to
be
a
promising
opportunity
has
turned
into
a
money
pit,
even
for
those
in
favour
when
prof.
lacquers
argue
that
it
would
be
a
waste
not
to
tap
into
the
energy
resource
beneath
our
feet,
not
only
are
they
ignoring
the
negative
ecological
effects
fracking
causes,
but
that
fracking
in
itself
is
a
terrible
investment.
Three
years
after
a
well
begins
producing,
almost
all
the
resource
has
been
collected.
Fracking
is
not
a
sustainable
resource.
N
If
a
well
does
not
continually
expand
within
three
years,
ninety-five
percent
of
the
natural
gas
will
have
been
collected
and
the
well
rendered
useless
according
to
the
London
Evening
Standard
independent
industry
observers
reckon
that
in
2012-13
well
before
the
price
collapse
of
oil
companies
in
the
US
was
spending
around
forty
two
billion
dollars
a
year
to
maintain
production.
The
value
of
gas
produced
was
reckoned
to
be
thirty
two
billion
dollars.
Such
a
measurement
shows
that
the
companies
were
actually
losing
ten
billion
dollars
a
year
to
perform
hydraulic
fracturing
contrary
to
belief.
N
Unconventional
gas
is
already
very
expensive
to
produce.
Companies
need
higher
energy
prices
to
even
make
a
profit
and
fracking
wells
drain
quickly,
continually
causing
production
places
to
be
high
and
therefore
the
cost
of
fracking
to
be
high.
After
the
20th
of
October
this
year,
the
price
of
oil
at
fifty
one
dollars
and
forty
six
cents
a
barrel
was
far
below
the
price
that
fracking
requires
to
make
a
profit,
which
is
the
burned
$100
a
bottle
a
barrel
with
fracking.
N
Nobody
wins
even
those
in
favor
of
it,
and
these
statistics
come
with
the
assumption
that
there
is
natural
gas
to
be
found
in
general,
but
ignores
that
not
all
wells
performed
in
2015,
the
US
company
Chevron
terminated
its
operations
in
Romania,
partly
due
to
underwhelming
results.
According
to
the
new
site,
RT
globally
Chevron's
2014
failure
rate
stood
at
30
percent,
16
of
the
53
wells
drilled
were
found
to
have
no
commercially
viable
quantities
of
oil
or
natural
gas.
N
If
we
allow
fracking
their
current
Scotland,
it
will
continue
to
spread
like
a
virus
since
the
wells
drink
quickly.
It
continually
needs
to
feed
into
other
areas.
After
knowingly
pumping
toxic
fluids
into
the
ground
destroys
what
it
leaves
behind.
We
should
need
to
burn
fracking
without
exception
and
I
support
the
Scottish
Spong
thank.
M
O
You
for
setting
off
sir
I
should
say
from
the
outset:
I
didn't
wake
up
this
morning,
a
born-again
fracking
champion,
like
the
government
I
too,
have
heard
many
of
the
public
concerns
aired
throughout
this
prolonged,
but
somewhat
evidence
led
approach
to
this
controversial
subject
over
the
past
few
years
to
some
of
the
very
words
fracking
itself
conjures
up
much
imagery
and
often
negative
opinions
from
a
wide
range
of.
In
my
view,
educated
sources
were
sought
and
were
duly
given,
and
it
was
right
and
proper
to
do
so.
But
I
approached
today's
debate
with
view.
O
There
is
also
right
and
proper
to
ensure
the
government
takes
decisions
based
on
evidence
and
facts,
not
just
opinion
polls
and
email.
Petitions
I
fear
that
the
government's
spend
machine
has
decided
that
the
issue
of
fracking
is
no
longer
the
place
for
scientific
opinion
and
I'm
not
alone.
In
this
analysis,
dr.
Chris,
Masters
Co,
chairman
of
the
Scottish
Science
Advisory
Council,
and
the
fellow
of
the
Royal
Society
of
Edinburgh,
has
also
expressed.
Concern
of
this
decision
has
diminished
Scotland's
reputation
as
a
world
leader
in
science
on
13th
of
October.
O
He
was
quoted
in
The
Times
as
saying
it
seems
increasingly
that
the
Scottish
government
is
almost
ignoring
scientific
evidence.
We've
moved
from
a
situation
where
we
talked
about
evidence-based
policy
to
a
situation
where
we're
looking
for
policy
based
evidence.
They
determined
the
policy
first
and
then
find
the
evidence
to
support
it.
In
fact,
just
a
few
weeks
ago,
I
will
mr.
B
O
Think
I
just
said
that
I
supported
the
government's
approach
to
seeking
the
views
of
a
wide
range
of
people.
The
problem
is
that
haven't
heard
any
substantive
evidence
from
the
Minister
on
why
or
how
he
made
his
decision
now.
In
fact,
the
minister
himself
said,
and
I
quote
I'm
sure
that
an
unconventional
oil
and
gas
industry
would
work
to
the
highest
environmental
and
health
and
safety
standards.
O
So
by
this
logic,
does
he
now
think
that
unconventional
gas
extraction
would
be
performed
safely
or
not,
or
does
he
not
trust
that
our
regulatory
environment
in
our
energy
markets
is
robust
enough
to
regulate
this
industry?
It
is
entirely
unclear
what
specific
scientific
evidence
the
minister
has
used
as
a
basis
to
make
his
decision
and
I'd
be
welcome
to
give
wave
he's
willing
to
clarify
that
minister.
P
B
Me
going
through
all
of
it,
but
I'll
cite
one
example
in
terms
of
the.
He
is
quite
correct
that
we've
stressed
that
in
Scotland
a
well
regulated
industry
could
take
place.
However,
even
in
that
context,
KPMG
indicate
there
would
be
additional
claimed
emissions.
Westerwelle,
regulated
industry
they'll
be
extremely
difficult
to
mitigate
against
our
annual
statutory
climate
change
targets.
That
is
science
and
that's
practical
action.
We
are
not
going
forward
a
fracking
jamie-lee.
O
The
minister
is
using
environmental
targets
as
a
rationale
for
explaining
his
scientific
evidence.
The
the
environmental
targets
have
one
thing,
I'm
still
yet
to
hear
specific
examples
in
this
chamber
of
why
the
minister
thinks
that
unconventional
gas
is
safe
or
not
still
waiting
it
uses
instead.
The
phrase
that
there's
no
social
licence
for
unconventional
gas
and
oil
is
social
licence
different
from
a
scientific
licence.
The
most
the
fail
signal
is
completely
there.
In
other
countries.
Advances
in
technology,
combined
with
a
strong
regulatory
environment
and
a
trial
based
approach
have
made
extraction
safe
and
sustainable.
O
It
is
indeed
very
puzzling.
The
Scottish
government
would
hold
such
strong
opposition
to
this
practice.
Yet
they're
happy
for
40,000
barrels
of
shale
gas
to
be
imported
into
Scotland
every
day.
I
want
the
SNP
seems
happy
for
shale
gas
to
be
extracted
elsewhere
in
the
world
and
to
be
shipped
to
Scotland
to
meet
our
energy
needs,
but
rule
out
any
chance
of
the
creation
of
an
indigenous
market.
So
I
asked
if
the
government
deems
it
an
unsafe
or
risky
form
of
energy
creation.
Why
are
they
so
happy
to
benefit
from
the
product
of
the
process?
O
But
be
so
appalled
by
its
method
of
production,
because
therein
lies
the
contradiction
of
this
decision.
A
Scotland
will
not
just
look
lose
out
the
jobs
of
the
span,
but
also
the
inward
investment
we
greatly
need.
England
is
set
to
receive
thirty
three
billion
pounds
and
shale
gas
investment
over
the
next
two
decades
and
the
sole
subsidy
free.
A
blanket
ban
risk
sending
critical
expertise
in
hydrocarbon
extraction
to
England
or
indeed
overseas,
and
this
all
sounds
very
familiar
presiding
officer.
As
someone
who
represents
a
community
with
a
nuclear
power
station
on
its
doorstep.
O
I
am
fully
aware
of
what
happens
when
a
government
takes
a
politically
negative
view
to
an
energy
industry.
Now
I
do
respect
to
continued
and
lifelong
ideological
opposition
that
some
have
to
its
very
existence,
but
over
the
decades
understand,
has
provided
Scotland
a
high
volume
of
energy,
a
high
number
of
high
quality
jobs
and
high
standards
and
safety.
O
The
government's
antipathy
towards
both
nuclear
and
unconventional
gas
is
ideological
and
nothing
more
now,
as
I
said
in
my
opening
lines
of
a
speech,
I'm
not
I'm,
not
arguing
for
a
gung-ho
full
steam
ahead
approach
to
unconventional
gas
extraction,
but
I
do
believe
that
this
decision
is
about
more
than
fracking.
It
is
about
undermining
the
ability
of
communities
to
decide
for
themselves,
something
which
I
feel
strongly
about,
and
I
also
think
that
has
been
poorly
presented.
Members.
O
Q
You
fracking
has
been
an
issue
that
many
of
my
constituents
have
been
adamantly
opposed
to
for
some
time.
In
fact,
myself
as
a
candidate,
my
position
against
fracking
was
an
issue
that
I
highlighted
during
my
campaign
for
today
for
those
in
Edinburgh
Eastern
time
to
be
very
proud
to
vote
in
favor
of
the
Scottish
Government's
ban
on
fracking
and
I'd
also
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
mention
a
campaign
group.
Our
fourth
practice
from
my
constituency
here
in
the
gallery
today
for
their
hard
work
and
continued
work
on
this
issue.
Q
The
public
consultation
on
this
matter
proved
that
my
constituency
was
not
alone.
Only
1%
of
the
60
thousand
respondents
voiced
their
support
for
fracking
in
Scotland,
and
it
is
no
wonder
why
the
consequences
for
the
environment
and
for
public
health
are
nothing
but
dire.
This
decision
shows
that
the
SNP
government
prioritized
the
environment
and
have
a
vision
for
a
different
Scotland,
a
Scotland
that
has
become
a
global
leader
on
the
environment
and
the
fight
against
climate
change.
Scotland
has
already
exceeded
its
target
of
producing
50
percent
of
electricity
from
renewables
by
2015
and
by
2030.
Q
The
SNP
aims
for
Scotland
to
have
an
entirely
decarbonized
electricity
sector
just
earlier
this
month
on
the
2nd
of
October
Scotland's
wind
power
produced
double
the
amount
of
electricity
needed
for
the
country's
total
daily
energy
consumption,
and
our
proposals
in
this
year's
programme
for
government
earned
praise
from
the
UN's
head
of
environment
to
allow
fracking
to
go
forward
then,
would
be
incompatible
with
this
government's
climate
leadership
and,
more
importantly,
it
would
be
in
direct
violation
of
public
opinion.
There
is,
as
the
minister
said,
no
social
licence
for
it.
In
direct
contrast
around
this
time.
Q
Last
year,
in
England,
the
Tory
UK
government
intervened
in
Lancashire
Council's
fracking,
ban
overturning
the
decision
and
riding
roughshod
over
local
residents
in
favor
of
a
shale
company.
Now
we've
already
seen
what
a
Conservative
government
has
done
to
disabled
people
to
homeless
people,
to
struggling
families
and
now
to
local
communities.
Q
It
seems
that
Tory
policy
is,
as
ever
to
know
the
price
of
everything
and
the
value
of
nothing,
but
Scotland
should
not
be
led
under
a
narrow-minded
at
any
cost
mentality,
because
that
way
of
thinking
that
way
of
governing
would
see
some
fracking
jobs
created
at
the
expense
of
the
very
air
we
breathe
and
the
water
we
drink.
It
would
see
an
industry
propped
up
in
the
short
term,
while
damaging
our
environment
in
the
long
term,
and
even
when
threat
to
our
planet
is
clear,
even
when
the
voice
of
the
Scottish
public
is
resolute.
Q
Even
when
the
health
hazards
are
spelled
out
in
black
and
white,
the
Tories
will
still
take
the
side
of
an
industry
that
would
inflict
all
of
this
harm
on
the
people
and
communities
that
they
are
meant
to
represent,
but
the
SNP
is
looking
beyond
the
likes
of
fracking
that
would
inflict
harm
on
Scotland's
environment
and
its
people.
Instead,
we
are
opting
for
investment
in
renewable
forms
of
energy.
This
clean
power
will
provide
electricity
and
also
heating,
and
this
further
investment
will
create
jobs
whilst
also
protecting
the
environment.
Q
Our
critics
suggest
that
we
are
turning
our
backs
on
jobs
and
on
profits,
but
the
evidence
doesn't
support
that
the
KPMG
report
concluded
that
fracking
would
bring
1,400
direct,
indirect
and
induced
jobs
to
Scotland
at
its
peak
and
around
to
2,
maybe
3
billion
pounds
through
to
2060,
but
in
contrast
to
that,
Scotland's
natural
environment
is
valued
at
more
than
20
billion
pounds
a
year
and
it
supports
60,000
direct
jobs
alone.
So
to
invest
in
one
industry
proven
to
devastate
a
much
more
valuable
industry.
By
far
is
not
a
Renaissance,
it
is
madness.
Q
In
reality,
the
only
ones
in
this
chamber
that
have
turned
their
backs
on
anyone
are
the
Tories
they've
turned
their
backs
on
the
environment,
they've
turned
their
backs
on
local
communities
and
they've
turned
their
backs
on
the
will
of
the
Scottish
people,
and
if
that
were
not
enough,
the
UK
government
might
be
potentially
attempting
to
reira
serve
the
EU
licensing
regime,
which
should
rightfully
come
to
the
Scottish
Parliament.
The
cannot
happen.
The
Scottish
people
have
spoken
and
the
Scottish
government
has
acted.
There
will
be
no
fracking
in
Scotland.
Q
All
the
parties
in
this
chamber,
except
for
the
Tories,
are
in
favour
of
this
action,
proving
once
again
that
the
best
interest
of
Scotland
cannot
be
trusted
in
the
hands
of
the
Conservatives.
The
SNP
record
today
and
in
our
last
10
years
of
government,
proves
the
exact
opposite.
Today
we
act
in
the
best
interest
of
Scots
in
the
best
interests
of
our
climate
and
in
the
best
interest
of
our
future
as
a
nation.
Thank
you
thank.
C
Vice
president
officer,
since
the
air
list
is
an
industrial
revolution,
the
demand
for
energy
has
increased
exponentially
in
our
areas
of
my
region,
a
bit
at
the
center
of
Scotland's
energy
production,
coal
production
and
Midland
West
Lothian
and
the
world's
oil
industry
began
in
West
Lothian,
with
the
shield
oil
watts,
and
for
ten
years
we've
had
one
of
the
country's
biggest
went
farms
at
black
law,
which
opened
the
floodway
floodgates
to
one
of
the
greatest
opportunities
of
our
times
and
renewables.
So
far.
C
They
are
known
for
holding
the
country
to
ransom
by
threatening
to
close
down
biggest
refinery,
they're
known
for
using
the
muscle
to
shaft
the
workforce
and
they're
known
for
using
the
private
monopoly
to
China
and
the
main
a
legitimate
and
responsible
trade
union
for
the
claim
of
protecting
their
members.
Livelihoods
and
it's
NES,
who
have
the
most
again.
It's
not
for
naught
licensees
across
the
central
belt
in
the
north
of
England
Scottish
government
ministers
made
the
company
when
a
dozen
occasions
and
the
run-up
to
the
original
moratorium.
C
Maybe
now
we
can
have
the
details
of
those
conversations
released
than
the
interest
of
transparency,
but
I
wouldn't
hold
my
breath.
I've
actively
opposed
fracking,
because
I've
worked
in
depth
at
what
has
done
in
communities
elsewhere,
polluting
the
water
table
effect
in
a
land
and
food
chain
causing
public
health
concerns,
a
hundred
thousand
wells
drilled
in
the
u.s.
since
2005,
using
two
hundred
and
eighty
billion
gallons
of
water,
which
becomes
heavily
polluted
during
the
process.
C
These
are
very
serious
concerns
and
they
have
a
have
had
a
important
impact
on
water
supply
on
rivers,
plant
and
animal
life
and
ultimately
in
human
health
and
a
whole
host
of
other.
Concerns
have
been
raised
about
contaminated
water,
illegal
dumping
of
water
and
wastewater
being
given
to
livestock
feeding
into
the
food
chain
and
also
aquifer
contamination.
Air
pollution.
I,
don't
want
to
see
a
single
community
here
affected
by
this,
but
I
also
don't
want
to
see
another
community
and
the
US
or
anywhere
else
affected
by
it.
C
Let's
be
clear,
it's
the
political
pressure
that
came
about
both
from
Cordoba
Mischa's
bail
and
huge
public
opposition
that
has
forced
the
government
to
act,
but
we
don't
have
a
ban
just
a
continued
moratorium.
Prior
to
the
announcement
of
that
moratorium,
we
had
almost
radio
silence
from
governor
backbenchers,
hardly
one
of
them
speaking
out
demanding
a
ban,
but
one
behold
when
the
continued
moratorium
was
announced,
all
of
a
sudden
was
silent,
compliant
and
dutiful
backbenchers
have
found
their
voices
telling
the
world
they
have
all
been
opposed
to
fracking
all
along
well.
C
R
C
If
you
do
that,
you
incur
the
wrath
of
Jim
Ratcliffe
you'll
incur
the
wrath
of
Aeneas
you'll,
incur
the
wrath
of
the
Tory
party
and
probably
Fergus
as
well.
But
you
will
get
my
support.
I
believe
you'll
get
the
support
of
the
overwhelming
majority
members
of
this
Parliament
and
in
doing
so,
will
join
France
Bulgaria
and
several
US
states
and
legally
seeing
nota
fracking.
Thank.
P
You
presiding
officer,
when
it
comes
time
to
reflect
upon
my
tenure
as
an
MSP
now
I
do
ought
to
be
something
well
into
the
future.
October
the
3rd
2017
will
stand
out
as
a
genuine
highway
was,
of
course,
the
day
that
Paul
we
also
have
Scotland,
would
subject
to
the
support
of
Parliament,
not
permit
a
Scotland
would
not
promote
fracking
on
its
soil.
P
As
an
implacable
opponent
of
hydraulic
fracturing
scorned,
it
was
a
decision
I
warmly
welcomed
when
the
moratorium
was
announced,
a
forecast
and
this
chamber
that
any
robust
examination
of
the
evidence
available
from
across
the
globe
would
lead
us
to
this
point.
It
was
therefore
something
about
lief,
not
only
that
it
dead,
but
I
was
spared.
The
possibility
of
any
vote
against
the
Scottish
government
position
because
had
we
today
been
debating
allowing
fracking
I
would
not
only
have
been
speaking
against
the
motion,
but
a
decision
thing
voting
against
it
for
me
for
environment
on
climate
change.
P
The
reason
fracking
is
not
something
we
should
go
anywhere
near,
but
October.
The
third
was
personally
memorable
for
another
reason
that
was
the
evening
I,
along
with
Claudia
Beamish
and
Angus
McDonald,
had
the
enormous
privilege
of
being
in
a
Great
Hall
of
Edinburgh
Castle
to
see
Christina
Figueres,
presented
with
the
Shackleton
medal
to
honor
her
enormous
contribution
to
having
the
world
finally
recognized
its
responsibilities
in
tackling
climate
change.
More
importantly,
we
held
an
utterly
inspirational
speech
from
her
I
had
the
further
privilege
of
having
a
brief
chat
with
Miss
Fergus.
P
Now,
I
won't
breach
a
confidence
here,
although
I
suspect
she
wouldn't
be
concerned
that
I
dead
and
reveal
the
specific
detail
of
what
we
discussed
and
what
she
had
to
say.
But,
let's
just
say,
she
was
well
sated
on
the
fracking
decision
and
her
message
was
simple:
well
done,
Scotland
keep
on
doing
what
you're
doing
now.
I
recognize
that
our
voice
has
raised
in
opposition
to
this
decision.
But
me
I
stand
with
the
architect
of
the
Paris
climate
agreement
on
this,
and,
of
course,
Christina.
P
Forget
us,
isn't
the
only
globally
respected
figure
to
endorse
this
decision?
Former
would
be
used.
U.S.
presidential
contender,
senator
Bernie
Sanders
who's,
seen
firsthand
the
impact
of
fracking
across
the
pond.
Please
Scotland
and
challenged
his
own
country
to
follow
a
lead.
We've
all
followed
tears
of
the
empire's
of
fracking
in
the
USA,
but
it's
been
practiced
for
a
decade
or
so
and
let's
look
at
the
changes
in
the
mission
figures.
In
that
time,
one
studies
highlighted
a
30
percent
increase
in
atmospheric
methane
concentrations
between
2002
and
2014
in
the
US.
P
Although
the
people
does
not
attempt
to
identify
the
source
of
methane,
this
period
coincides
with
the
development
of
unconventional
oil
and
gas,
and
a
further
study
has
estimated
that
40%
of
growth,
an
atmospheric
methane
between
2007
and
2014,
can
be
attributed
to
oil
and
gas
activities.
I
would
argue
that
offers
a
pretty
sound
reason
for
supporting
this
ban.
They
were
told
by
the
UK
onshore
oil
and
gas
in
choosing
to
ban
domestic
orange
cord
exploration.
P
The
Scottish
Government's
telling
us
back
on
a
potential
3,000
jobs
and
SEK
45
billion
of
economic
benefit,
yet
economic
impact
or
sales
conducted
by
KPMG
concludes
it
direct
and
indirect
economic
benefit
combined
through
2060
to
would
amount
to
only
3.4
billion,
cumulatively
maximum
and
the
number
of
related
jobs,
direct
and
indirect,
would
peak
at
1400,
not
insignificant,
but
nowhere
near
the
figure
speculated
by
you
cog,
the
earth.
Through
due
respect,
do
you
have
a
vested
interest
here
and
the
fact
that
Scotland's
already
committed
to
an
energy
future?
P
That
brings
whether
financial
and
jobs
benefits,
and
these
were
already
well
down
that
road,
that
a
nubuck
sector
is
currently
reckoned
of
a
ton
over
five
billion
pounds
and
supports
26,000
jobs.
And
why
would
we
jeopardize
the
natural
void
by
an
environment
which,
whatever
other
value
we
place
on?
It
is
as
ash
Denham
noted
what
20
billion
pounds
a
year
to
our
economy
and
supports
60,000
direct
jobs,
presiding
officer,
having
committed
ourselves
to
a
low-carbon
future,
then
surely
the
focus,
mustard,
Amin
and
transitioning
away
from
fossil
fuel
use
and
increasing
a
renewable
generation.
P
It
was
revealed,
as
Parliament
rose
for
recess
on
the
first
Monday
of
October
wind
turbines
in
Scotland
generated
more
than
double
the
electricity
the
country
used
on
that
day.
Just
last
week,
the
first
minister
opened
the
world's
first
floating
wind
farm,
which
will
generate
enough
power
for
around
20,000
homes.
We
can
remove
the
blockages
to
offshore
generation
the
FAFSA
for
30.
Then
we
can
really
help
targets
in
this
area
of
renewable
energy
generation
and
then
a
cost-effective
way.
P
Uk
government
research
assuring
that
the
new
voice
of
the
potential
become
more
cost
effective
as
a
generation
source
than
conventional
gas
fire
power
stations
by
the
28th
mid
2020s.
The
life
thing
cost
of
onshore
wind
is
estimated
to
falter
63
pounds
per
megawatt
oil
generated
below
the
comparable
cost
for
gas
of
the
same
thing.
Free
offshore
wind
costs
are
also
estimated
to
read
becoming
competitive
with
gas
by
2050
presenting
officer.
We
don't
need
to
frack
for
the
good
of
the
environment.
We
should
not
frack
and
a
few
minutes
time.
Let's
make
it
queer.
M
S
This
is
something
of
a
mess
Norma
fracking
is
now
that
I
knew
not
a
particularly
unconventional
method
to
the
first,
the
foster
use
of
fracking
UK
was
back
in
1965
and
by
the
late
seventies
was
common
through
the
North
Sea
and
the
world.
Frankly,
the
technology
behind
the
high
wind
floating
wind
farm
project
that
the
frost
Mercer
recently
opened
last
week,
which
is
really
really
interesting
as
it's
decidedly
more
unconventional
than
fracking
as
one
of
the
most
commonly
expressed
fears.
S
My
husband,
expressed
today
about
fracking
is
the
use
of
chemical
additives
and
the
fluid
used
to
fracture
the
rocks,
who
at
least
is
more
than
99%
of
the
fluid
volume,
tends
to
be
water
and
sand.
So
chemical
additives
to
create
a
less
than
1%
and
these
additives
do
tend
to
be
poorly
akoa
mates
which
have
deemed
to
be
non
harmful.
S
There's
unquestionably
been
instances,
we
have
lacks
regulation
and
prudent
environmental
protections
have
led
to
the
use
of
an
appropriate
it
chemicals
in
the
fracking
process,
but
this
is
a
failure
of
regulation
and
monitoring
not
of
science
and
even
among
the
scientists
and
experts
commissioned
by
the
Scottish
Government.
There's
a
strong
body
of
opinion,
which
believes
that
it's
possible
to
have
successful,
warrants
or
frightening
program
in
scorned,
with
a
strong
regulatory
and
monitoring
framework
presenting
officer
is
rate
that
we
take
the
almost
care
from
making
decisions
late
less.
S
When
was
always
balanced
risk
against
rewarding
et
cetera.
What
can
be
done
to
mitigate
that
risk?
But
all
too
often
with
these
issues,
we
reduced
it
a
simplistic
level
that
debate
is
all
but
useless.
Now,
when
power
is
frequently
held
up
as
the
epitome
of
clean,
environmentally
friendly
air
velocity,
but
like
every
form
of
energy
production,
it
does
have
its
negatives
now
I'm
supporting
constituents
at
the
moment.
Well,
then
close
to
wind
farm
who
experience
issues
with
water,
borehole
failing
are
becoming
contaminated,
a
result
of
turbine
installations.
S
Don't
allow
no
new
mutant
or
nuclear
power
stations,
but
let
the
old
ones
keep
running
because,
while
Scotland
needs
the
base
load
in
the
credit
to
offset
the
instability
of
one
power,
they
don't
want
the
hassle.
The
anti-nuclear
Lobby
will
germinate
any
suggestion
of
building
a
new,
safer,
more
efficient,
cleaner
nuclear
reactors
or
on
GM
crops
newly
see
out
here,
because
we
were
rightly
proud
of
a
globally
recognized
talent
in
biological
science
sector.
S
The
Scottish
government
prefer
not
to
incur
the
wrath
of
the
anti
GM
campaigners,
for
whom
no
regulatory
system
could
be
stringent
enough
to
prevent
the
upcoming
apocalypse,
in
their
view,
we're
seeing
the
same
thing
again
with
fracking,
rather
than
exploring
the
opportunity
to
secure
a
source
of
energy
and
jobs,
albeit
with
a
cautious
approach
to
rolling
it
out.
The
Scottish
government
chooses
to
slam
the
door
shut
and
seek
please
for
the
quality
of
its
law,
the
presiding
officer.
S
If
only
self
righteousness
was
an
energy
source,
we
could
all
Hubble
round
Paul
wheelhouse
and
his
cohorts
and
keep
warm.
And
it's
no
wonder
it's
no
wonder
the
SNP
are
so
happy
to
who
are
twenty
arms
everywhere.
It
reminds
them
of
themselves
in
the
way
they
tun
and
no
ever
direction.
The
wind
happens
to
be
boring
at
that
time.
Renewables
are
undoubtedly
where
most
of
not
all
of
our
power
will
come
from
and
hopefully
not
too
distant
future.
We
cannot
meet
those
grand
ambitions
in
a
single
week.
S
This
is
that
Germany
and
we
need
to
be
pragmatic
about
the
steps
we
take
to
reach
our
final
goal.
Personally,
I
would
like
to
see
a
greater
research
into
hydrogen
cell
fuel
technology
as
it's
arguably
a
more
sustainable
power
system
for
the
right
two
vehicles
than
batteries
and
means
charging
on
all
these
issues.
There's
nothing
but
silence
from
the
Scottish
government
I
mean
no.
S
Feynman,
the
Nobel
prize-winning
physicist
said:
science
is
the
belief
in
the
ignorant
of
experts.
This
isn't
a
comment
of
its
scientists
being
ignorant
or
a
dismissal
of
experts.
His
point
was
that
science
is
about
embracing
doubt
about
being
open
to
the
possibility
that
you
might
be
wrong.
That's
why
science
has
trials,
that's
why
they
conduct
tests
and
experiments.
It
might
be
wrong,
but
it's
so
important
to
try
and
research
and
develop
to
improve,
but
time
and
again
the
Scottish
government
shy
away
from
this
payment.
S
Again
they
choose
to
drive
a
policy
based
on
upsetting
the
fewest
number
of
people.
That
is
shortest
amount
of
time.
Please
conclude:
it.
Ok,
forever
your
possession
and
medicine
fracking.
We
should
be
we're
a
training
officer
of
taking
decisions
with
long-term
implications
based
on
the
fear
of
throat.
Thank.
S
T
You
for
saying
officer,
I,
like
many
most
of
the
chamber,
welcome
this
government
Scottish
Commons
proposition
for
an
issue.
A
strict
and
effective
ban
on
fracking,
using
planning
players
to
ensure
applications
for
unconventional
oil
and
gas
extraction
are
considered
in
line
with
that.
Scottish
government
position
that
very
strong
position
that
fracking
cannot
and
will
not
take
place
in
Scotland.
This
decision
is
a
victory
for
campaigners
and
communities,
including
the
many
campaigners
in
Edinburgh
Northern,
at
least
and
I,
to
pay
tribute
to
the
air
force
campaigners.
T
It
is
a
victory
for
the
long-term
public
health,
environmental
sustainability
and
economic
interests
of
Scotland.
It
is
a
victory
based
on
evidence,
a
Geological
Survey,
a
climate
change
impact
assessment,
a
health
impact
assessment
and,
crucially,
an
economic
impact
assessment
as
well,
because
those
who
argue
in
favor
of
fracking
on
economic
grounds
forget
the
crucial
political
philosophical
point
that
policy
should
always
be
about
more
than
the
basis
of
GDP.
It
should
be
over
and
the
common
good
of
Scotland
and
the
society
in
economy
that
were
trying
to
build
and
Tory
opposition
to
this
ban.
T
It's
just
another
demonstration
of
their
economic
and
competence
there,
the
old
story
of
a
quick
buck
that
runs
through
the
Tory
political
philosophy
has
been
clear
for
all
to
see.
Today.
In
this
debate,
research
from
KPMG
has
stated
that
fracking
would
contribute
very
little
to
the
economy.
In
the
short
term,
it
would
only
contribute
on
average
of
0.1
percent
of
GDP,
only
1.2
billion
over
the
decades.
That
would
go
ahead.
T
Put
that
in
comparison
to
the
tourism
industry,
for
example,
that
could
be
impacted
by
fracking,
which
has
an
annual
an
annual
revenue
of
11
billion
pounds
to
the
Scottish
economy
and
makes
up
four
point.
Two
percent
of
GDP
compare
that
Tory
position
with
LSE
research
that
a
new
deal
position
from
the
Tories
on
brakes
would
see.
Scotland
used,
lose
30
billion,
gve
and
changes.
T
At
Westminster
we
have
25
percent
of
Europe's,
tidal
energy
resource,
10
percent
of
Europe's,
wave
energy
resource
and
25%
of
its
offshore
wind
resource.
We
don't
need
fracking.
We
have
huge
renewable
potential
and
Scotland
still
to
utilize.
I
also
support
the
Labour
amendment
and
the
greener
amendments
which
will
strengthen
the
position
and
build
on
the
legally
robust,
evidence-based
approach
that
the
Scottish
government
have
taken.
This
decision
that
I
hope
Parliament
will
meet
tonight
is
a
move
in
favour
of
the
next
generation,
as
well
as
the
benefit
of
the
status
quo.
T
It
is
a
move
to
low-carbon
technology
being
the
most
important
investment
for
our
economic
and
technological
energy
progress.
It
is
a
move
to
protect
the
environment,
it
is
a
move
to
help
tackle
climate
change
and
it
will
also
represent
the
demo
member
said
his
last
minute:
I
will
also
represent
the
Democratic.
Will
the
Democratic
will
of
the
Scottish
people,
who
voted
primarily
for
political
parties
who
were
skeptical
of
fracking?
T
It
is,
will
be
the
Democratic
well
as
expressed
in
the
60,000
consultation
responses
that
were
made
and
I
know
that
only
1%
of
those
responses,
a
were
in
favour
of
fracking
and
the
Tories
are
in
fear
for
the
fracking.
Does
this
demonstrate
once
and
for
all
that
the
Tories
only
stand
up
for
the
1%
in
our
society,
so
in
Parliament
today,
let's
send
a
clear
message
that
this
Parliament
opposes
fracking
both
know
and
in
the
future,
not
just
for
the
benefit
of
those
of
us
today,
but
for
the
benefit
of
our
environment.
T
H
There's
been
a
change
to
be
Angus.
Mcdonald
wanted
to
take
us
back
to
the
Ethan
epoch
complaining.
This
debate
had
not
been
scheduled
50
billion
years
ago.
Appoint
him
you
wish
to
take
up
with
the
bureau
in
jus
cost
Murdo
fraser,
acting
as
the
self-appointed
spokesperson
for
the
GM
gem
sellers
in
a
political
realignment
not
seen
since
the
Eocene
epoch,
but
anyway,
the
the
back
going
to
this
debate
around
this
issue
in
Parliament
I
think
was
helpfully
set
out
by
Claudia
but
Beamish,
reflecting
on
the
passage
of
her
member's
bill.
H
The
vote
in
this
Parliament
secured
support
from
ourselves
from
labour
and
from
the
the
greens,
but
also
I,
think
a
number
of
members
mark
Ross,
Cole
and
others
have
pointed
to
the
development
of
the
consensus
I
with
this
building
and
the
work
done
by
a
number
of
NGOs,
but
a
number
also
very
genuine
community
in
grassroots
organizations.
I
said
in
my
opening
speech,
I
very
much
understand
and
sympathize
with
the
frustration
that
they
have
felt
about
the
length
of
time
it's
taken
to
get
to
this
point.
H
I'm
sure
many
of
them
will
continue
campaigning
on
this
issue.
I
think
it's
worth
putting
on
record
their
contribution
to
getting
us
to
where
we
are
now.
The
40
area
thing
of
concern
that
that
were
reflected
in
in
all
speeches
this
afternoon
were
in
the
broad
categories
of
health,
social,
environmental
and
economic
impacts
of
fracking.
The
minister
I
think
was
right
in
opening
up
the
debate
to
remind
us
of
the
position
taken
by
health
improvement,
Scotland
and
in
light
of
the
epidemiological
impacts
being
so
uncertain.
H
The
precautionary
principle
really
was
only
the
only
appropriate
approach
in
relation
to
the
the
social
impacts.
I
think
we
had
testimony
and
insights
from
frontline
communities,
Angus
McDonald,
Nia,
Finley,
Ben,
McPherson
and
others
I
think
pointed
to
the
the
the
emotions
within
these
communities
about
the
impact
that
fracking
might
have,
not
least
in
relation
to
to
housing
and
I.
Think
Claudia
Beamish
drew
quite
rightly,
the
parallel
with
many
of
these
communities
who
are
still
enduring
the
ongoing
impact
of
the
opencast
mining
industry.
H
But
perhaps
inevitably
the
focus
of
much
of
the
debate
was
around
the
second
two
areas.
Here,
environmental
and
economic
and,
while
I
think
a
series
of
contributors
from
the
Torrey
benches
drew
attention
to
what
they
saw
was
a
lack
of
scientific
evidence
for
the
position
adopted
by
the
government
and
backed
by
other
parties
in
this
I.
Think.
The
minister
was
also
right
to
point
to
the
fact
that
the
Tories
appeared
to
be
supportive
of
fracking
even
before
they
gathered
the
evidence.
H
The
evidence,
let
alone
public
views
upon
this
issue
and
I
think
that
it's
fair
to
say
that
scientific
evidence
on
this
is
always
going
to
have
an
area
of
doubt
about
public
policy
needs
to
be
framed
a
guided
by
science,
but
reflecting
the
fact
that
scientific
evidence
comes
in
many
forms
in
the
UK
Committee
on
climate
change
has
been
consistent
in
its
warnings
about
their
likely
rising
in
emissions.
The
risk
to
our
climate
change
targets,
and/or
the
offsetting
effects
of
needing
to
make
emissions
reductions
elsewhere
and
I
think
what
Russell
again
was
right
to
say.
H
The
displacement
here
would
be
more
from
coal
than
it
would
be
more
from
renewables
than
it
would
be
from
coal
and
an
energy
future,
whether
it's
a
secure,
sustainable
and
affordable.
Then
renewable
storage,
energy
efficiency
and
demand
reduction
has
to
be
the
direction
we're
going
in
renewables
in
terms
of
job
creation
as
well.
The
economic
impacts
there
are
far
more
profound
and
important
in
terms
of
jobs
in
wealth
creation.
H
League
I
can
say
with
some
certainty.
I
didn't
always
degree
agree
with
the
decisions
he
made,
but
I
would
bow
to
his
his
understanding
of
matters.
Geological
and
I
think
he's
quite
right
to
suggest
that
the
the
economic
benefit
or
fracking
have
been
over
dated
for
a
member,
very
sensible
geological
reason.
So
I
think
in
conclusion,
for
environmental,
economic,
health
and
social
reasons.
H
M
U
You
deputy
presiding
officer,
it's
often
said
that
politicians
are
behind
the
curve
when
it
comes
to
public
opinion,
but
it
seems
that
we're
55
million
years
behind
the
geological
reality.
According
to
heriot-watt
chief
scientist
and
professor
Underhill,
as
noted
by
Angus
McDonald
this
afternoon
presiding
officer,
it's
been
over
two
years
since
I
first
moved
a
motion
in
this
chamber
highlighting
the
significant
public
opposition
to
new
methods
of
fossil
fuel
extractions,
such
as
fracking,
and
calling
on
the
Parliament
to
implement
a
ban
on
unconventional
fossil
fuel
extraction
in
Scotland
to
protect
our
communities.
U
Whoo
I
can't
thank
enough
for
their
involvement,
opposing
us
our
environment
and
respect
our
international
climate
change
commitments
and
I.
At
that
time,
not
one
other
party
in
this
chamber
supported
my
call
and
that
day,
she'll
gas
international
gleefully
declared
the
Green
Party
failed
to
ban
fracking
in
Scotland
yesterday,
and
that
Allison
Johnston
argued
that
a
ban
on
unconventional
gas
in
Scotland
would
focus
attention
on
truly
renewable
energy
sources,
rather
than
scraping
the
bottom
of
the
fossil
fuels
barrel.
U
She
also
rejected
claims
that
exploration
of
shale
gas
deposits
will
lower
household
energy
bills,
saying
that
consumers
are
being
offered
false
hope
as
I
do
today,
presiding
officer,
the
article
went
on
to
say
that
John
Swinney,
then
finance
secretary,
Labour's,
Ian
gray
and
Tory
MSP
murder
freeze,
are
all
rejected.
Her
call
for
a
ban
now
I
warmly
welcome
the
fact
that
four
or
five
parties
in
this
chamber
are
firmly
opposing
this
technology.
Today,
I
would
politely
point
out
to
mr.
U
Finley
that
you
voted
against
my
motion
calling
for
a
ban
on
fracking
on
the
7th
of
May,
2014,
presiding
officer.
Greens
have
always
recognized
the
uncertainties
and
risks
fracking
and
other
new
fossil
fuel
technologies
posed.
The
government's
researched
during
the
moratorium
has
strengthened
that
case,
pointing
to
the
lack
of
evidence
needed
to
assure
us
that
the
public
health
risk
is
negligible
and
the
economic
case
was
also
found
to
be
weaker
than
expected,
and
while
that
evidence,
gathering,
PAP
deed
was
underway,
Greens
and
others
have
been
on
the
front
line.
U
Standing
shoulder-to-shoulder
with
the
scope,
Central
Scotland
communities
who'd
be
most
impacted
by
fracking
I've
spent
time
with
many
others
impact
community
halls
where
the
public
raised
their
concerns
with
developers
with
our
fourth
with
concerned,
communities
of
Falkirk
and
many
more
I
lodged
motions
looked
back.
They
gained
meager
support.
Numerous
parliamentary
questions,
highlighting
the
risks
of
this
industry
and
creams.
Greens
also
came
close
to
securing
a
two
kilometre
buffer
zone
between
communities
and
fracking
developments.
U
When
the
last
national
planning
framework
was
up
for
discussion,
I
almost
won
that
vote
in
committee,
but
but
the
conveners
vote
swung
it
and
I
do
commend
murder
freezer
on
being
consistent
on
this
issue.
Although
he
is
consistently
wrong
now,
I
welcome
the
government's
announcement
that
it
will
ban
fracking,
but
as
mark
grass
growth
is
highlighted.
We
need
to
ensure
that
the
ban
extends
beyond
the
lifetime
of
this
government
and
is
subject
to
robust
parliamentary
scrutiny.
U
The
green
amendment
today
goes
further.
It
calls
for
the
Scottish
Government
to
use
its
powers
over
oil
and
gas
licensing
when
these
are
transferred
from
the
UK
government.
We
must
use
the
full
range
of
powers
that
are
available
to
us
to
ensure
that
the
ban
against
fracking
remains
in
place
for
generations.
I
hate
for
those
that
allowed
you
that
gas
might
be
lower
carbon
than
coal
feed
enough,
but
it
is
a
stretch
to
try
to
place
that
within
the
low-carbon
economy.
U
That's
like
seeing
do
you
know
what
I'd
like
to
lose
weight
so
I'll
forego
a
fresh
cream
cake
and
I'll
just
have
a
wee
plate
of
chocolate.
Biscuits
instead,
I'm
pretending
that
that
is
health
foods.
It
is
a
stopgap,
it's
one
that
would
divert
much
needed
skills
and
investment
from
our
abundant
renewable
fossil
fuels
are
estimated
by
the
International
Energy
Agency
to
receive
subsidies
of
three
hundred
and
eighty
billion
pounds
a
year.
If
only
similar
incentives
were
offered
to
develop
renewables.
Astonishes
me
that
the
so
called
party
big
business
doesn't
get
the
economics.
U
No
wonder
your
tree
is
no
longer
green.
Renewables
can
sustain
livelihoods
and
communities
and
provide
for
our
energy
needs
for
the
long
term
and
as
the
minister
noted
Lord
Brown
sheet
of
the
fracking
company
Cuadrilla
and
a
key
UK
government
advisor
and,
of
course,
professor
John
Underhill.
They
have
agreed
that
the
economic
opportunities
are
fright
or
fracking
are
overhyped
presiding
officer,
I'll
wrap
up
there
I
will
be
supporting
the
Green
Amendment.
V
You
very
much
presiding
officer,
there's
no
doubt
we're
heavily
reliant
on
gas,
for
our
energy
needs,
accounts
for
some
55%
of
our
energy
consumption
and
is
likely
to
be
just
as
important
in
the
future,
for
energy,
for
heating
and
for
the
petrochemical
industry.
So
we
need
to
look
ahead
to
forecast
future
needs
and
challenges.
Demand
is
forecast
to
remain
roughly
the
same
for
the
next
20
years.
According
to
the
Department
for
energy
and
climate
change.
V
There
are
a
number
of
different
approaches
we
need
to
take,
but
my
starting
point
is
that
everything
we
do
has
to
be
seen
in
the
context
of
the
climate
change
strategy
and
statutory
targets
that
we
as
a
Parliament,
all
agreed.
So
reducing
demand
and
consumption
has
a
part
to
play,
as
does
pursuing
new
opportunities
offshore,
where
we
have
been
fracking
for
some
time.
We
shouldn't
let
up
on
our
focus
on
renewables
either
because
renewables,
although
they
will
not
provide
for
all
of
our
energy
needs,
they
are
in
increasing
and
welcome
part
of
our
energy
mix.
V
So
in
that
overall
context,
it
does
seem
to
me
a
little
bit
perverse
that
we
should
want
to
use
another
fossil
fuel
which
would
run
contrary
to
everything.
We've
said
in
this
chamber
now.
The
Scottish
government,
rightly,
in
my
view,
commissioned
six
expert
reports
covering
everything
from
health
impacts
to
an
economic
impact
assessment.
Others
have
touched
on
health
and
the
environment
and
I.
Don't
want
to
repeat
that,
but
I
want
to
talk
exclusively
about
the
economic
impact.
Now
I
think
many
of
us
in
this
chamber,
contrary
to
what
others
might
think,
are
actually
quite
pragmatic.
V
You
know
if
the
jobs
and
economic
growth
had
been
significant.
We
would
have
needed
to
weigh
that
up
very
carefully
indeed,
a
time
when
the
economy
is
flatlining.
We
should
of
course
consider
the
potential
advantages,
but
it
is
ultimately
about
striking
a
balance
between
environmental
and
economic
interests
in
the
long
term.
Now
there
were
many
claims,
many
of
them
stella
claims
made
for
the
economic
benefits
of
fracking
for
jobs
in
our
economy.
There
were
many
claims
made
about
what
it
would
deliver
in
the
form
of
cheap
fuel.
V
That
would
help
us
tackle
fuel
poverty
and
don't
get
me
wrong.
Both
of
these
are
attractive
propositions,
but
unfortunately
the
claims
tended
to
be
far
greater
than
the
actual
reality.
Investing
in
onshore
fracking
does
not
grow
the
economy
by
a
significant
margin
and,
let's
consider
the
KPMG
report.
If
we
went
for
fracking
the
estimated
spend
in
Scotland
over
the
next
forty
five
years
would
be
2.2
billion
pounds,
that's
48
million
pounds
a
year.
The
lowest
estimate
of
total
Scottish
spend
is
0.5
billion
and
that's
11
million
pounds
a
year.
V
That's
not
a
huge
amount
of
money.
If
you
then
consider
the
tax
take
something
that
should
now
interest
interest
us
all
in
this
Parliament,
the
tax
yield
would
be
1.4
billion
across
the
UK
for
spend
over
45
years
in
Scotland.
You
would
get
a
barnett
share
of
about
140
million
over
45
years
now
just
pause
and
work
that
out
a
hundred
and
forty
million
over
forty
five
years
is
about
three
million
pounds
a
year.
This
is
not
going
to
make
a
significant
difference.
Peak
employment
is
about
one
thousand
four
hundred
jobs.
V
The
lowest
estimate
is
470
jobs,
nor
all
of
those
jobs
are
for
the
entirety
of
the
45
years,
but
will
depend
on
production
and
scale
of
development.
So,
whilst
this
is
undoubtedly
better
than
having
no
jobs,
this
plus
the
tax
tape
and
the
spend
in
the
economy
needs
to
be
set
against
potential
environmental
impact
and
the
key
question
of
whether
this
is
worth
the
risk
and
there
are
risks,
some
of
which
have
been
outlined
by
Neil,
Finley
and
others
in
their
contribution
to
the
chamber.
V
So
I'm
not
convinced
there
was
the
numbers
in
the
KPMG
report.
This
represents
such
a
significant
economic
impact
that
we
should
proceed
with
fracking.
Others
say
that
fracking
will
provide
us
with
the
cheap
form
of
fuel
and
we
should
be
able
to
tackle
fuel
poverty.
Nobody
would
wish
that
more
than
me,
but
I
know.
The
observation
in
the
Royal
Society
of
Edinburgh
is
paper
whose
briefing
was
particularly
helpful
that
actually
it
would
not
be
any
cheaper,
as
we
are
part
of
the
open
market.
V
Finally
presiding
officer,
much
mention
has
been
made
in
this
debate
about
respecting
the
science
and
I
wholeheartedly
agree
with
the
proposition
that
this
should
be
an
evidence-based
Parliament.
But
it
is
not
the
only
consideration
for
this
Parliament.
It
is
for
parliamentarians
to
weigh
up
all
the
evidence.
The
science,
the
economic
impact
and
the
view
of
the
public,
their
voice
should
also
be
heard
in
this
debate
because
they
will
be
the
ones
who
live
with
this
in
their
communities.
V
Presiding
officer,
labour
has
wholeheartedly
supported
the
members
bill
put
forward
by
my
colleague,
Claudia
Beamish
I
think
it
has
been
undoubtedly
very
helpful
in
encouraging
the
Scottish
Government
to
do
more
and
I
am
pleased
that
this
evening
the
Scottish
Government
will
accept
our
amendment
that
places
fracking
within
the
national
planning
framework
so
that
it
can't
be
changed
at
a
whim
by
ministers,
but
requires
the
vote
of
this
Parliament
to
overturn
a
step
short
of
a
legislative
ban,
but
nevertheless
very
welcome
and
something
we're
pleased
to
support.
Thank.
M
W
You
deputy
presiding
officer
now
the
SMPS
position
on
fracking
has
been
nothing
short
of
impractical
and
badly
principled
and
sadly,
nothing
in
this
debate
has
shown
it
to
be
otherwise.
For
years
now,
the
SNP
have
differed
on
fracking
and
now
slaves
of
a
central
belt
will
miss
out
on
what
should
have
been
the
gold
rush
of
this
century.
So,
as
has
been
pointed
out,
community
benefit
of
over
600
million
could
have
been
plowed
into
these
areas.
W
New
schools
built
new
playing
fields
created
and
community
centres
upgraded,
yet
instead
the
SNP
have
turned
their
backs
on
Scotland
and
put
their
own
political
agenda
ahead
of
scientific
evidence.
Now,
not
only
is
it
the
central
belt
they
are
letting
down,
but
thousands
of
skilled
workers
from
the
oil
and
gas
industry,
particularly
in
the
northeast,
will
have
another
door
of
opportunity
slammed
in
their
faces.
So
perhaps
labour
might
reflect
on
this.
The
next
time
they
speak
of
energy
sector
job
losses.
W
So,
shame
on
the
Scottish
government
for
turning
down
a
fantastic
chance
for
so
many
Scots
high
quality,
highly
skilled
jobs,
which
would
have
taken
in
Scottish
talent
and
boosted,
our
young
people's
chances
and
aspirations,
and
these
skills
will
now
develop
in
England.
So
Labor's
position
again
is
all
over
the
shop,
but
not
reflecting
the
shop
floor.
So
Claudia
Beamish
and
her
colleagues
now
choose
to
side
with
the
greens,
and
it
would
appear
they
only
listen
to
their
unions
when
they
want
to
stop
rather
than
create
work.
W
W
We
know
that
a
shift
a
natural
gas
from
coal
has
cut
more
than
2
billion
tons
of
co2
in
the
last
decade.
This
is
over
70%,
more
successful
when
emissions
reduced
through
renewable
energy
and
even
the
former
leader
of
Greenpeace
has
said
that
the
movement
needs
to
have
an
urgent
rethink
over
energy
sources,
but
the
demands
for
gas
are
not
just
about
energy.
There
is
a
huge
lack
of
understanding
about
the
industry
which
produces
the
products
which
we
use
in
our
everyday
light.
W
Without
the
chemicals
produced
at
Grangemouth,
it
is
nearly
impossible
to
get
through
a
day
without
using
multiple
products
to
rise
from
gas.
Such
products
from
shampoo
clothing,
contact
lenses
and
washing
powder
all
contain
gas
derivatives
now
I'm,
not
sure
about
the
rest
of
the
chamber,
but
I
for
one
I'm
keen
to
maintain
a
basic
level
of
hygiene
so
whether
for
energy
or
products
denying
Scotland
the
security
of
its
own
supply
is
also
denying
the
savings
to
our
consumers
from
fuel
poverty
to
rising
household
expenses.
W
The
consequences
of
this
decision
will
be
costly,
and
yet
the
SNP
know
this
and
continue
to
import
40,000
barrels
of
fractured
gas.
Everyday
and
as
one
of
my
colleagues
noted,
the
Royal
Society
of
Edinburgh
pointed
out,
but
the
global
carbon
footprint
of
a
gas
but
Scotland
imports
will
be
far
higher
than
for
any
onshore
production
in
Scotland,
utter
hypocrisy,
deputy
presiding
officer,
but
the
SNP
don't
care
for
fact
and
are
happy
for
it
to
happen
somewhere
else
as
long
as
it
isn't
in
their
backyard.
W
Academics,
scientists
and
engineers
now
know
that
the
SNP
government
is
not
for
knowledge
and
expertise
and
would
put
political
posturing
first,
so
forget
about
talking
Scotland
down.
This
is
letting
Scotland
down
deputy
presiding
officer.
This
is
a
massively
missed
opportunity
at
the
SNP
party
conference.
They
spoke
of
progress,
but
is
it
progress
to
deny
these
communities
a
chance?
Is
it
progress
to
stop
thousands
of
jobs
being
created?
Is
it
progress
to
ignore
the
scientists
and
academics,
and
is
it
progress
to
ban
something
only
to
import
it
from
elsewhere?
M
B
You
presiding
officer
and
we
are
reaching
the
culmination
of
nearly
four
years
of
carefully
considered
investigation
into
unconventional
oil
and
gas.
Unlike
the
the
characterization
of
their
members
to
my
left,
I
I
wish
to
thank
the
members
of
the
chamber
for
a
lively
and
informed
to
be,
for
the
most
part,
a
well
informed
debate
today.
Throughout
this
process,
we
have
been
fully
committed
to
engaging
in
a
balanced
informed
debate
with
the
public
stakeholders
in
Parliament.
B
Just
taken
embrace
was
taken
away
by
Alistair,
Alexander
Burnett,
sorry
closing
remarks,
they're
suggesting
this
was
a
paint
and
pinion
pool.
We
specifically
say
there
was
not
an
opinion
poll.
There
was
a
consultation
open
to
that
all
the
people
Scotland
stakeholders
indeed
internationally
and
sixty
thousand
five
hundred
people
took
part,
including
many
people-
did
take
part
from
internationally
in
the
consultation,
but
we
have
specifically
focused
as
I'm
sure
members
will
understand,
and
the
responses
from
those
men
in
Scotland
I
have
indeed
heard
enough
from
from
the
conservative
entity
and
I
will
respond.
I
will
respond.
B
I
will
respond
to
the
points.
I
will,
however,
respond.
Two
points
have
been
raised
by
conservative
members
in
debate.
So
they're
not
going
to
be
forgotten,
but
throughout
this
process,
be
moved
fully
committed
as
a
state
to
a
balanced
informed
debate,
be
clearly
and
transparently
saute
and
made
publicly
available,
impartial,
independent
research
evidence,
including
science,
on
the
potential
impacts
of
unconventional
oil
and
gas.
We've
encouraged
and
impart
everyone
with
an
interest
to
express
their
views
and
evidence.
B
We
recognized
that
this
is
a
complex
and
highly
technical
issue
and
we
took
steps
a
number
of
innovative
steps,
indeed
to
encourage
participation
in
our
public
consultation
and
I
want
to
thank,
as
other
members
have
done,
specific
groups
I
want
to
thank
everybody,
whether
they
were
for
or
against
unconventional
oil
and
gas,
we're
taking
part
in
the
exercises
we've
commissioned
and
for
the
export
evidence
that's
been
provided
to
us.
We
have
scrutinized
the
evidence
and
we
have
carefully
considered
the
response
to
a
consultation
and
on
the
3rd
of
October.
B
We
set
our
position
and
put
in
place
a
robust,
an
effective
ban
on
unconventional
oil
and
gas
in
Scotland,
a
presiding
officer,
a
decision
on
unconventional
oil
and
gas
has
gone,
does
not
exist
in
isolation.
It
must
be
viewed
within
the
context
of
our
longer-term
ambitions
for
energy,
and
members
have
made
that
point
and
I
fully
recognize
it
also
in
respective
manufacturing
and
the
Scottish
economy.
More
generally
and
of
course,
our
climate
change
responsibilities.
B
Jackie
really
made
a
number
of
very
important
points
about
offshore
oil
and
gas
she's,
absolutely
right
as
an
important
industries
to
support
it
does
provide
three-quarters
of
our
primary
energy
needs
and
we
do
require
to
support
the
industry.
Offshore
production
of
oil
and
gas
in
North
Sea
has
developed
over
the
last
half-century
is
a
highly
regulated
industry,
with
some
of
the
most
advanced
and
comparatively
least
polluting
production
methods
in
the
world,
and
that
is
why
an
industry
supporting
over
100,000
jobs
exist
is
gone.
I
will
in
a
moment
say
if
mr.
B
Harvey
will
forgive
me,
Jacky
Billy
was
also
raped.
That's
a
strong
and
vibrant
domestic
offshore
oil
and
gas
industry
can
play
a
positive
role
in
the
future,
and
we
certainly
want
to
see
that
role
being
played
in
terms
of
low-carbon
transition.
I
believe
the
skill
sets
will
migrate
across
to
low-carbon
activities
in
due
course
as
well,
but
the
demands
of
our
energy
infrastructure
will
change
dramatically
in
the
decades
ahead,
and
these
are
these
changes
unfold.
B
In
this
context,
I
note
with
interest
the
UK
government's
clean
growth
strategy
and
its
renewed,
if
rather
belated,
but
welcomed
interest
in
carbon
capture
usage
and
storage
and
under
the
right
conditions.
This
technology
has
the
potential
to
support
a
new
industry
in
Scotland
that
would
not
only
exploit
the
Scotland's
geological
and
industrial
resources,
but
would
do
so
well
contributing
to
our
mission
to
tackle
climate
change.
We
will
work
to
ensure
that
you
key
funding
for
industrial
decarbonization
reflects
the
scale
of
ambition
for
important
Scottish
industrial
clusters.
B
Such
as
that
green
growth,
as
well
as
ambition
for
a
new
low-carbon
sectors
within
the
economy,
presiding
officer
keeping
our
vision
for
energy
is
also
crucial
to
our
efforts
to
tackle
fuel
poverty
and,
as
announced
by
the
First
Minister,
the
Scottish
government
is
developing
plans
for
an
energy
supply
company
that
will
support
with
our
efforts
to
attack
all
fuel
poverty
and
help
to
achieve
our
ambitious
climate
change
targets
and
a
number
of
measures.
I
mentioned.
John,
Bryan,
lourd,
Bryan
and
myself.
Alison
Johnston,
just
very
recently
mentioned
him
as
well.
B
I
just
want
to
give
the
actual
court
that
Lord
Brennan
has
actually
mentioned.
Being
a
mentee
was
the
former
chairman
of
Cuadrilla.
He
said
we
are
part
of
a
well-connected
European
gas
market,
and
unless
it
is
a
gigantic
amount
of
gas,
it
is
not
going
to
have
a
material
impact
on
price.
Kpmg
further
went
on
to
say
it
is
worth
noting
that
given
limited
recoverable
volumes,
Yukie
unconventional
oil
and
gas
oprah's
would
only
represent
a
fraction
of
the
supply
to
the
global
market.
B
Furthermore,
the
scale
of
development
in
Scotland
will
be
much
lower
than
that
in
the
US
and
haen't
Scottish.
Unconventional
oil
and
gas
is
unlikely
to
have
an
impact
in
global
energy
prices,
and
this
finding
suggests
there
would
be
no
noticeable
effect
in
energy
cost
for
households,
I
notice,
the
Conservatives
are
not
made
that
point
to
D&E
to
any
extent
I
think
they
already
know
the
game
is
up
on
that
point.
They
have
made
it
very
loudly
since
the
3rd
of
October,
so
hopefully
they
finally
be
convinced.
I'll
bring
a
mr.
Harvey
if
only
Patrick
Harvey.
M
X
Grateful
it
was
relating
to
an
earlier
point
that
the
minister
made
about
offshore
oil
and
gas
when,
in
a
previous
role,
he
had
responsibility
for
climate
change.
He
was
one
of
the
few
people
within
the
SNP
who
accepted
the
basic
principle
that
the
majority
of
existing
fossil
fuel
reserves
are
going
to
have
to
be
left
in
the
ground.
Just
as
we're
doing
now,
with
onshore
shale
reserves.
M
X
B
To
take
take
a
discussion
with
that
point
with
mr.
Harvey
in
due
course,
but
I
really
want
to
focus
on
the
debate
we're
having
today,
which
is
about
not
creating
a
new
source
of
unconventional
gas,
a
new
source
of
low
carb,
high
carbon
energy
and
but
looking
beyond
the
the
energy
strategy.
Scotland's
manufactured
chemicals
industry
continue
to
play
a
crucial
role
in
the
economy,
and
we
will
continue
to
give
our
industry
strong
support.
Then.
B
Turning
to
the
point
to
be
made
in
my
final
few
minutes
and
that
have
been
made
by
members,
I
do
want
to
highlight
a
few
that
be
made
by
the
Conservatives
to
start
with
them.
I
said
in
response
to
Myrtle
Fraser
that
he
has
failed
to
acknowledge
the
63%
of
gas,
but
just
in
the
UK
is
produced
in
Scotland
by
eight
and
a
half
percent
of
the
population
and
Scotland
is
a
net
exporter
of
gas.
Mr.
B
B
C
B
Conservatives
believe
the
economic
impact
is
important.
They
should
acknowledge
that
and
they
should
be
acting
now
to
prevent
a
heart,
brexit,
Claudia,
Beamish
I
want
to
pay
tribute
to
Claudia
Beamish.
We
may
be
in
a
different
position
in
terms
that
she
will
have
set
out
and
initially
to
intend
to
have
a
band
I
want
to
endorse
the
position
of
a
labor
amendment.
Indeed,
the
green
amendment
and
the
Liberal
Democrats
today,
we
will
take
steps
to
enshrine
this
position
subject
to
their
strategic
environmental
States.
B
Many
wills
take
steps
to
ensure
in
this
position
international
filing
framework,
but
I
want
to
thank
Claudia
Bemis
for
her
courtesy
and
her
engagement
with
you
on
this
issue
and
her
hard
work
in
terms
of
delivering
her
consultation.
I
will
happily
discuss
with
mr.
Beamish
claim
permitting
the
issue
of
cooperative
models
in
renewables.
It's
something
we
share.
An
interest
in
and
I
became
to
work
with
her
on
that,
but
my
trust
was
summed
up.
B
This
is
an
opportunity
for
progressive
parties
in
this
chamber
to
unite
today
to
make
a
strong
message
about
the
future
of
unconventional
oil
and
gas
and
also
stay
in
the
message.
The
Conservatives
the
views
of
people
do
matter.
We
have
listened
to
the
science
we've
looked
at
the
economic
evidence,
something
they
have
almost
completely
ignored
and
cherry-pick
figures.
They
have
cherry-pick
figures
which
are
distorted
from
the
evidence
at
KPMG
produced,
and
it's
just
not
working.
B
Indeed,
my
Rasool
summed
up
very
well:
it's
just
not
worth
it,
and
he
is
absolutely
right
in
that
respect,
as
set
out
in
the
opening.
In
my
opening
remarks
and
confirmed
to
my
rescue,
we
will
use
the
license
in
powers
in
line
with
the
scottish
government's
position
and
lea
MacArthur
made
two
excellent
speeches.
I
thank
him
for
his
positivity.
In
his
remarks.
He
was
right
to
identify
their
significant
challenges
that
have
been
thrown
up
by
the
evidence,
and
we
do
indeed
have
a
possession
well
be
teeming,
taking,
perhaps
a
scenic
route,
not
55
million
years.
B
I
can't
take
credit
for
the
first
54
million
plus
years
of
the
process
that
Angus
my
but
certainly
the
last
year
and
a
half
I
am,
and
indeed
Angus,
McDonald
and
other
members
who
cited
this
strong
views
of
their
local
constituents.
I
hope
will
be
satisfied
with
the
outcome
today.
If
Parliament
votes
to
endorse
our
position
and
an
officer
I'm
aware
that
time
is
running
out,
but
I
want
to
just
summary
Christina
McKelvey
put
it
put
it
well
in
saying
we
are
quitting
communities
first
and
I.
Think
that
is
important.
B
We
also
listening
to
the
science,
but
clearly
we
have
listened
to
the
views
of
communities
and
Claire
Baker
I
think
was
right
to
identify
the
higher
cost
of
extraction
in
Scotland.
That
is
cited
in
the
evidence,
and
it
shouldn't
be
assumed
that
the
industry
will
be
as
cost-efficient
as
elsewhere
in
the
world.
:
BT
mentioned
the
point
about
higher
energy
prices.
B
I
I
just
wanted
to
see
if
Morris
golden
was
here
in
the
chamber,
no
fears,
but
I
was
watching
Staunton
8
last
night,
I
think
he'll
be
perhaps
reflecting
on
his
remarks
that
fracking
we
provide
a
solution
to
the
finances
of
Scotland
in
an
exponential
year.
No
it
won't
mr.
gorban,
you
have
to
come
up
with
another
plan,
thanks
very
much
presiding
officer.
Y
Thank
you
very
much.
That
concludes
our
debate
on
unconventional
oil
and
gas.
The
next
item
of
business
is
consideration
of
business
motion.
Iii
77
in
the
name
of
Joe
Fitzpatrick,
on
behalf
of
the
Bureau
setting
out
a
revised
business
program.
I
would
ask
any
member
who
objects
to
say
so
now
and
I
Colin
drove
his
Patrick
to
move
motion,
8
3,
7,
7
formulas.
Thank
you
very
much.
November
I
was
asked
to
speak
against
the
motion.
Therefore,
the
question
is
that
motion
8
3
7
7
be
agreed.
Are
we
all
agreed?
We
are
agreed?
Y
We
now
come
to
decision
time.
There
are
five
questions
to
be
put
as
a
result
of
today's
business.
I
write
members
that
if
the
amendment
in
the
name
of
murder,
freezer
is
agreed
and
all
other
amendments
would
fall.
The
first
question
is
that
amendment
III
41.3
in
the
name
of
murder,
freezer,
which
seeks
to
amend,
motion
84
1
in
the
name
of
Paul
wheelhouse,
an
unconventional
oil
and
gas
be
agreed.
Are
we
all
agreed
we're
not
agreed,
we'll
move
to
a
vote
and
members
McCaskill's
votes
now.
Y
The
result
of
a
vote
on
amendment
8,
3
4
1.3
in
the
name
of
murder
Fraser,
is
yes
28,
no
90
there
was
one
abstention.
The
amendment
is
therefore
not
agreed.
The
next
question
is
that
amendment
8
3
4
1.1
in
the
name
of
Claudia
Beamish,
who
seeks
to
amend
the
motion
in
the
name
of
all
polylines
be
agreed.
Are
we
all
agreed
we're
not
a
breed
we'll
have
a
division
and
members
be
cast
the
votes
now.
Y
The
result
of
the
vote
on
amendment
8
3
4
1.1
in
the
name
of
Claudia
Beamish,
is
yes
90,
no
28
there
was
one
abstention.
The
amendment
is
therefore
agreed.
The
next
question
is
the
amendment
8
3
4
1.4.
In
the
name
of
Mark
Rosco,
we
ceased
her
main
motion.
In
the
name
of
Paul
we
Loused,
we
agreed
how
we
all
agreed.
We
not
agreed
we'll
move
to
a
vote
and
members
may
cast
their
votes
now.
Y
The
result
of
the
vote
on
amendment
number
84
1.4
and
the
name
of
mark
Roscoe
is
yes
90,
no
27
there
was
one
abstention.
The
amendment
is
therefore
agreed.
The
next
question
is
the
amendment
8
3
for
1.2,
in
the
name
of
Lee
MacArthur,
who
seeks
to
amend
the
motion
in
the
name
of
probe,
allows
be
agreed.
Are
we
all
agreed
we're
not
agreed
we'll
move
to
a
division
and
members
may
cast
the
votes.
Y
The
result
of
the
vote
on
amendment
83
for
1.2
in
the
name
of
Lee
MacArthur
is
yes
90,
no
28
there
was
one
abstention.
The
moment
is
therefore
agreed,
and
the
final
question
is
that
motion
84
1
in
the
name
of
Paul
Phillips,
as
amended
on
unconventional
oil
and
gas,
be
agreed,
are
well
agreed,
were
not
agreed,
will
move
to
a
vote
and
members
McCants
their
votes.
Now.
Y
Y
Z
Y
As
the
member
will
know,
it
is
up
to
all
members
individually
to
make
a
judgement
and
whether
or
not
to
make
a
declaration
of
interests.
That
concludes
decision
time.
The
move
now
two
members
business,
the
name
of
Lewis
MacDonald
on
helicopter
safety,
we'll
just
take
a
few
moments
for
members
to
change,
seats.