The next item of business is a debate on motion 8341 in the name of Paul Wheelhouse on unconventional oil and gas. May I ask those members who wish to take part in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now? I call on Paul Wheelhouse to speak to and move the motion up to 12 minutes, please, minister. On 3 October, I set out the conclusion of the Scottish Government's extensive investigation into unconventional oil and gas. I made clear that following our assessment of the evidence, the Scottish Government does not support the development of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland, and an effective ban using our devolved planning powers is now in place, pending the outcome of the required strategic environmental assessment. Today I reaffirm that position and honouring the commitment that I made on 8 November last year, I give Parliament an opportunity to endorse our carefully considered and robust position on unconventional oil and gas. The Government has undertaken one of the most far-reaching investigations of any Government anywhere into unconventional oil and gas. That began in 2013, when I am a predecessor for August Ewing, who established an independent expert scientific panel to examine the evidence on unconventional oil and gas, including hydraulic fracturing or fracking and coal bed methane extraction. The panel reported its findings in July 2014. After carefully considering its findings, we introduced a moratorium on onshore unconventional oil and gas in January 2015. That created space to explore the specific issues and evidential gaps that are 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 that are identified by the panel. The reports covering health, economic and environmental matters allowed us to consider 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 full on 8 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 31 January this year. The consultation took a number of innovative steps to encourage debate, dialogue and wide participation. The consultation findings were published in full on 3 October this year in advance of my ministerial statement. Members across this chamber should be in no doubt. Ours has been a considered programme of investigation that explored issues in depth and encouraged an informed, balanced dialogue across Scotland. In coming to a view on 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, I had particular concerns over the insufficiency of epidemiological evidence on health impacts highlighted by Health Protection Scotland. Health Protection Scotland also noted that a precautionary approach to unconventional oil and gas is warranted on the basis of the available evidence. The position that we have taken on unconventional oil and gas is a clear deployment of the precautionary principle. The Committee on Climate Change reports set out that the additional emissions generated by unconventional oil and gas extraction in Scotland would make meeting our existing climate change targets more challenging. The committee forecast that greenhouse gas emissions from an industry in 2035 could range from 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 will make some progress and bring Mr Finlay in later for me. I remind the chamber that Scotland's statutory annual climate change target for 2032 is 26.4 megatons of CO2 equivalent. Indeed, the committee states in its report that, in order to be compatible with Scotland's climate change targets, new emissions from unconventional oil and gas production, we need to be offset through reductions in emissions elsewhere in the Scottish economy, with consequential costs for the sectors that are affected. I will bring in Mr Finlay, if you may be able to do so. Neil Finlay. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. Given that, in his words, there is now an effective ban and that there is no longer any issue of commercial sensitivity, will he now release all correspondence between the Scottish Government and INEOS regarding the discussions around fracking? Paul Wheelhouse. It is a little worth taking that point, but Mr Finlay can continue to press for information if he wishes. I want to get on with the statement that we have here. Our consultation embodied our commitment to local communities participating in decisions that matter to them. The overwhelming majority of respondents were opposed to the development of an unconventional oil and gas industry in Scotland. While not a referendum, approximately 99 per cent of the responses were opposed to unconventional oil and gas extraction in Scotland and fewer than 1 per cent were in favour. It is our responsibility as a Government to make a decision that we believe is in the best interests of the people of this country. We must be confident that the choices that we make will not compromise health and safety or damage the environment in which we live. Having considered this matter in 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. The research that we commissioned did not provide a strong enough basis from which to address those communities' concerns. I have noted calls that have been made by some groups. I will take an intervention just now. Murdo Fraser. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. Would he not accept that the consequence of his ban will be that Scotland will simply import frack gas from other countries? Can he tell us today that are there any other countries whose imports he would rule out taking frack gas from? Paul Wheelhouse. As Mr Fraser knows, I am the minister for energy in this country in Scotland. I do not have any role in packing on energy policy in other countries. It is a commercial matter for any of us. We have been clear throughout this process that that is a commercial matter for any of us. Our consultation embodied our commitment to local communities participating in decisions that matter to them. The overwhelming majority of respondents were opposed to the development of an unconventional oil and gas industry in Scotland. While not a referendum, as I say, 99 per cent of responses were opposed. I have noted calls that have been made by some groups for new legislation to ban fracking. The view appears predicated on the opinion that the position that we have adopted on unconventional oil and gas is not robust enough. However, I am confident that the approach that we have adopted is sufficiently robust to allow control of unconventional oil and gas development in line with our stated position. The pursuit of unnecessary legislation would tie up this Parliament's time in the face of other significant issues such as Brexit. In coming to our position, I sought legal advice and considered precedence, including our position on not supporting either new nuclear power stations or underground coal gasification. The approach that we have adopted using our fully devolved planning powers is to set out robust and effective ban using planning policy. Our approach ensures that decisions on unconventional oil and gas developments will be made in line with planning policy and procedure and within the framework of Scottish Government policy, policy that does not support unconventional oil and gas extraction in Scotland. On 3 October, I really must make some progress, but I will try to 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 powers will be transferred to this Parliament as soon as possible and that no such power grab by the UK Government will take place. When those powers are finally fully devolved, we will discharge them in line with our position on unconventional oil and gas. After this debate, we will issue a written policy statement on our position on unconventional oil and gas. This will support preparation of a strategic environmental assessment, which I propose will commence shortly and conclude in summer 2018. We will then formally set out our finalised position, which will be reflected in future iterations of Scotland's energy strategy. Presiding Officer, our 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, there are some who do not support the position that we have reached, but listening to the views put across by some, including those in the Conservative benches, you would think that 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 belt of Scotland. Creating employment and inclusive economic growth will always be key priorities for this Government, but such objectives cannot come at any cost. We will of course continue to work with industries to help to improve Scotland's competitiveness and economic growth. We closely consider 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 an average at unconventional oil and gas industry would add just not 0.1 per cent annually to Scottish GDP if fracking was given the go-ahead and generate up to 1,400 direct-in-direct and induced jobs in Scotland at peak production. To put that in context, in 2015 58,500 jobs were supported by the low carbon and renewable energy sector in Scotland, generating a turnover of £10.5 billion. The offshore oil and gas sector employs more than 100,000 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 on global gas prices. Consequently, there would be no noticeable effect on energy costs for households. That is a view that has also been expressed by Lord Brown, the former chairman of oil and gas operator, Quadrilla Resources. The real risk to Scotland's economy comes from a hard Brexit. Fraser Vallander estimated a hard Brexit threat—I note the member last—but he might want to pay attention to this. Fraser Vallander estimated a hard Brexit threat to Scotland's economy around £11 billion a year by 2030 and resulted in 80,000 fewer jobs when compared to remaining members of the EU single market in customs union. Mr Fraser really should pay attention to that. I fully understand that our decision has disappointed the companies that receive licenses from the UK Government, including INEOS, the operators of the Grangemouth petrochemical facility. On unconventional oil and gas extraction, we have formed a different view to theirs, but on their desire to see a long-term sustainable future for both the chemicals and refinery businesses at Grangemouth, we are agreed. We recognise the contribution to this country that is made by INEOS, and the chemicals and refinery businesses are strategically significant assets for Scotland. We will continue working with INEOS to understand their wider business needs and to improve their competitiveness before closing it. I will try to bring in Mr Whiteman, if I may. Andy Wightman I am very grateful to the minister. As he knows, I do not doubt the sincerity with which he speaks today in his intention to ban fracking. Does he accept that the mechanism that he has chosen is a mechanism that 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 Wheelhouse I recognise the point that Mr Whiteman is making, but I would say to him this. We have it in the scope of this Parliament to express a strong view here today in support of the Government's position, making it clear that that is a view that is supported by the people of Scotland in the consultation that we have undertaken. If I can read the runes, there is only one party in this chamber that even contemplates allowing fracking to proceed at this moment in time, and we can all work to prevent them from becoming the Government of Scotland. Those whose livelihoods depend on employment at Grangemouth are important to us, and we will never lose sight of that in our efforts to support innovation and investment. Presiding Officer, we have considered the scientific and economic evidence and have engaged in the debate and listened to the views of people across Scotland, something that Conservatives do not appear to want to do. The motion that we have tabled today, which I asked Parliament to support, is a clear and robust response to the evidence and the views that are expressed through our consultation. The Scottish Government has concluded that it is in the public interest to say no to fracking. The steps that we have taken have given immediate effect to this position. It is now time for all members of this chamber to set out their view, and I move the motion in my name. I now call Murdo Fraser to speak to and move amendment 8341.3. You have had story, Mr Fraser, my fault, and you have up to seven minutes. In relation to the Scottish National Party's ludicrous ban on fracking in Scotland, it is difficult to know which aspect of this is worse. Is it the Government's abandonment of evidence-led policymaking? Is it its contempt for science? Or is it the sheer hypocrisy from a party that, in the past, has been happy to champion Scotland's hydrocarbon industry but now simply wants us to rely on imports of fracked gas from elsewhere in the world, wherever that may be? I start with the science, Deputy Presiding Officer. For we know exactly what the science of fracking tells us. The reason we know that is that the Scottish Government commissioned its own expert scientific panel to give an independent report, which was published in July 2014. That report was quite clear. 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 the industry. The leading geological expert, Professor Rebecca Lunn of Strathclyde University, has slammed the SNP's position as an, I quote, uninformed, ethically appalling and passing the buck. Professor Paul Younger, rank and chair of engineering at Glasgow University, is someone held up by the SNP in the past as an energy engineering expert. The member of that expert scientific panel has slammed the Government's position, saying their justification for a moratorium where I quote, all made up and completely faint. He said that he felt completely violated as a professional following the announcement of a moratorium. Even the former leader of Greenpeace, Stephen Tyndale, has said that 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 on. Here we have a Scottish Government that commissions its own report from expert scientists that it 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. What we have is an SNP Government dancing to the tune of the green party rather than listening to the experts and listening to the science. I will get way to Claudia Beamish. Claudia Beamish Thank you, Presiding Officer. Could the member possibly indicate what the Scottish Tory party position is on the climate change chance, which is irrefutable and which he has failed so far to mention? Martel Fraser The position on the climate change case is perfectly simple. If all that we are doing is importing fracked gas from other jurisdictions, we will not have any impact on reducing climate change emissions in this country. I thought that that was very clear. That leads me on very neatly to this point about hypocrisy. Because, while fracking in Scotland is to be banned by the SNP, we will continue to see fracked gas from elsewhere imported to Scotland to heat our homes and power our industry. Today, 47 per cent of UK gas demand is coming from imports. Centrica has estimated that, by 2020, the UK will be importing 70 per cent of the gas that we need, and much of that will be fracked gas coming from elsewhere. Paul Wheelhouse Thank you to Martel Fraser for taking my intervention. If we leave aside the fact that Scotland produces 63 per cent of the UK's gas for 8.5 per cent of the population, my understanding is that imports and trade policy are reserved to UK Government. We could not stop imports of gas even if we wanted to, but it is a commercial matter for any of us. It is simply misrepresenting the truth to the public today. Martel Fraser The minister cannot get away from his hypocrisy on the stance to say that fracking is fine. In every other country in the world, fracking is fine. When I intervened on the minister, I asked him to rule out fracking in any other country in the world, he wouldn't do it. We will frack from any jurisdiction in the world, regardless of the environmental safeguards. We will have their fracked gas, but we will not do it here safely. That is why Ineos is importing today 40,000 barrels of shale gas every single day into Ineos. It is a very welcome development, Deputy Presiding Officer, but it simply means that that imported fracked gas from Pennsylvania will have a higher carbon footprint than it would be if we were producing it here. If we had produced it here, we could set the environmental safeguards, not have them imported from anywhere in the world, regardless of the safeguards that are in Putin's place. I do not often quote trade unionists in this chamber, but I want to quote, specifically, Gary Smith, the GMB's Scottish secretary, who denounced the Scottish Government's decision as dishonest and hypocritical, adding that Scotland is importing a huge amount of shale gas from Trump's America. 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 2 million households in Scotland using gas to heat their homes will get gas from in the future. Those on the Labour benches, Mr Leonard among them—I notice that he is not in the chamber this afternoon—need to be listening to what their trade union colleagues are telling him. We have heard a lot from the Scottish Government about their consultation. 99 per cent of the responses were opposed, and yet 86 per cent of those responses were campaign responses or from petitions that were whipped up by environmental groups. That led the minister to tell us in his statement that there was no social licence to allow fracking to proceed, given the level of public opposition in the communities likely to be affected. This is a breathtaking statement from a Government whose ministers have over the last decade ridden roughshod over local opinion in areas such as Perthshire, Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders, where there has 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. That is an SNP Government deputy presiding officer, which has two different standards, one for the central belt of Scotland and another for those living in rural Scotland. I 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. I will tell him exactly what they think about his views on social licence for energy developments. If that is now the foreign part of the Scottish Government's policy, he needs to apply that across the board to onshore wind as well as to fracking. We know that the SNP's stance on fracking is anti-science. We know that it has rejected evidence-based policymaking and that it is in an entirely hypocritical stance. That is all that means that we will be importing fracked gas from other parts of the world rather than doing it here, and we will be missing out on the economic benefits and jobs that could be provided. If the SNP does not want to listen to science, if they do not want to listen to the experts, if they do not want to listen to us, I can suggest that they listen to those in their own party. They can start with their former Deputy Leader Jim Sillers, who has said that he is laughing now. Mr Fraser, you must come to a close. I will remember when they all thought that Jim Sillers was the bee's knees when he was your Deputy Leader. He has told them that their party needs to think again about unconventional oil and gas extraction. If they want to listen to us— You must close please, Mr Fraser. If they want to listen to anyone else, listen to Jim Sillers. A fracking bad is bad for Scotland, bad for jobs, bad for the environment, and I move the amendment in my name. I now call Claudia Beamish to speak to and move amendment 8341.1 up to six minutes please, Ms Beamish. Thank you, Presiding Officer. For many across this chamber and this country, this has been a long and hard-fought battle. Unconventional oil and gas extraction, commonly referred to as fracking, is an unwanted technology, misted in 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. This was a significant moment in Labour's non-stop pressure on the SNP to ban fracking in Scotland. 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 per cent support from public respondents, a figure that cannot be overlooked, and the Scottish Government's talking fracking consultation returned an astonishing majority of 99 per cent of respondents opposed to fracking. I would like to give credit to the activists, NGOs, unions and others who responded to these consultations. Their tireless efforts and shouts were heard loud and clear. The Green Party has already pushed forward on this issue. The fact that the UK Tory Government continues to disregard those voices is, in my view, utterly shocking. Scottish Labour 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 that he can be in favour of fixing the climate or he can be in favour of exploiting shale gas, but he cannot be in favour of both at the same time. That is a question of climate justice. The Paris Agreement included the effort to limit warming to 1.5-degree 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. Christina Figueras, 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. The uncertainty caused by the SNP Government's long-drawn-out process, although I can understand reasons for it, left everyone in the dark. As this Parliament scrutinises 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 that has been significantly overinflated by the industry. As the minister has put it, the lack of social licence for fracking is an important point. Communities have rightly campaigned against acting as guinea pigs for the potential health risks, the air and water and ground pollution risks, the potential drop in house prices, increased traffic and disruption to local environments and biodiversity. Historically, those communities have no reason to trust the fossil fuel extraction industry. They are still tackling the scarred landscape and other employment and environmental issues that are left by the open-cast industries. Labour has been an unrelenting voice against fracking for well over a year, speaking in defence of our environment and communities, and it has been the pressure of my bill, which has in many ways helped to deliver action from the Scottish Government. My concern was that the Scottish Government's position was not robust enough, given that it could be reversed by a future minister or Government with ease. Labour's amendment today offers a layer of protection and a level of parliamentary scrutiny that 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. That is fundamental, as it will prevent ministerial direction for an indefinite moratorium from being changed on a ministerial whim. If the Labour amendment is supported, that added layer of protection will mean that I will not be progressing my bill to ban fracking. 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 Labour stressed in our 2016 manifesto that we believe in the civic energy future, a future that grows local schemes to produce green energy and heat for local use. In my own region, I am supporting the hilltop communities of Warnlockhead and Leadhills in their quest for a sustainable future. The Warnlockhead trust stresses that it wants a future that is 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 city-wide vision to be bought to life. Public ownership of renewables is supported by Scottish Labour as it is by the Scottish Government, and it would be helpful if the minister could give any more detail of that in his closing remarks. Those models, coupled with an inclusive Scottish investment bank, will drive a renewable energy future that belongs to everyone. The Lib Dems amendment is positive in that respect, and we will also be supporting it. To give certainty to our communities and support to our renewables energy industry, Scottish Labour 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 move the amendment in my name. I call Mark Ruskell to speak to and move amendment 8341.4 up to six minutes, please, Mr Ruskell. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. 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. Today is an historic moment, a turning point in our story. Since the industrial revolution, we have fuelled our progress on fossils laid down millions of years ago before humans even existed. 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. To shield ourselves from runaway climate change today, we must leave four-fifths of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground. However, fracking goes beyond even the known reserves, exploiting fossil fuels that are not even on the carbon balance sheet yet. To frack would not only put the brake on climate progress, but to stick us in reverse. Fracking is the toxic fag 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. Unlike the US, we have already shut down our coal electricity generation, so investing in fracked gas has the potential to displace not coal but renewables. We certainly do not need to be importing energy policies from Donald Trump, blown in on the hot air of Murdo Fraser and Jim Sillers. The UK Climate Change Committee judged that the widespread fracking would be incompatible with our climate targets. It is for that reason that we underline in our amendment the need for the blank section on fracking and the energy strategy to be filled with a fracking ban. Those forms of extreme energy are a distraction from the vision and investment that is needed to transform our energy system to one that is infinitely renewable, decentralized, democratised and smart. Our biggest economic opportunities in energy are in building on the offshore oil and gas expertise of the past to commercialise 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 is just not worth it. Professor John Underhill, Harriet Watt University's chief scientist, described the economic opportunity of fracking as over-hyped due to the physical reality of the complexities of our geology. The communities on the front line in areas that are already licensed for unconventional gas know what the impacts would be. In 2012, between Stirling and Falkirk, a coal-bed methane planning application was submitted for just a couple of dozen wells and, alongside that, processing infrastructure to exploit vast licensed areas. However, in public meetings, the developer came clean on the potential for over 600 wells locally, sterilising 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. It was right that the Scottish Government brought in a temporary moratorium on decisions through a letter to planning authorities. However, what has now turned into an indefinent moratorium would only require the stroke of a future minister's pen to undo. It is time to put in place a watertight ban with a firm basis in planning law. Putting the ban into the national planning framework would ensure that, if there is a change of government, then the democratic will of Parliament will remain as an effective backstop. It would put the ban on the same footing as the ban on new nuclear power stations, providing direction on the national strategic issue, extending the ban beyond the lifetime of this Parliament, while giving guidance to local authorities for the next 15 to 20 years. For that reason, I welcome that the Scottish Government has accepted our argument to embed the fracking ban into the national planning framework when it comes up for review next year. On licensing, Parliament needs to have powers over onshore oil and gas licensing devolved, as agreed under the 2016 Scotland Act. Leaving arguments over Brexit and the return of powers and wider European oil and gas frameworks aside, the agreed powers promised to this Parliament are overdue that commencement order needs signed immediately by UK ministers and we must unite as a Parliament to demand it. We expect and demand that these powers, when they arrive, be used in a way that is consistent with both the energy strategy and the national planning framework. There simply is no place in policy or on the ground for fracking in Scotland.  Those activists and communities have demanded the truth and they have got it. I would also like to pay tribute to politicians who have listened and acted from councillors to MSPs such as Alison Johnson, Claudia Beamish and the minister himself. You have all shown leadership within your parties, your movements and across the country. This is our moment to ban fracking and I move the amendment in my name. I call Liam McArthur to speak to you and move amendment 8341.2 up to six minutes, please. Thank you. Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome the debate and indeed the thrust of the approach taken by the Government in relation to unconventional oil and gas extraction. As I said following the minister's statement a fortnight or so ago, I believe that the approach represents the best way of implementing an effective and immediate ban on fracking in Scotland. That said, I hope that Parliament will also support the amendments in Lodge by myself, Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell. All I believe will help to provide further confidence about the longer-term robustness of the ban, while also setting it in the wider context of the energy strategy that we need if we are to meet our climate and other objectives going forward. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to Claudia Beamish for her efforts on this issue. I think that Mark Ruskell is right in drawing attention to the wider consensus that has built up over time, but I am in no doubt that her members built, which has 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 anti-jobs. It is neither. The scientific evidence throws down significant challenges where we have to go down the route of fracking in Scotland. Those are challenges that we would struggle to overcome and 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 favours in the past in taking decisions that appear to have no scientific underpinning. Indeed, I have been critical of them for doing so, yet the same simply cannot be said in this instance. The steps taken to weigh up the evidence in relation to environmental, health, social and other potential impacts of fracking have been extensive. Indeed, Mr White-Wheelhouse 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 demonstrably engaged expert stakeholders and the wider public. 99 per cent of responses to the consultation support some form of ban on fracking in Scotland, an overwhelming figure. However, I am a little uncertain what the consequences might be of the minister's repeated references in his statement to fracking having, quote, no social licence. He may need to spell out exactly what is meant by this concept, and, as Murdo Fraser pointed out, the opponents to wind farms and perhaps other energy developments will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of what a social licence might mean. If the minister is to avoid making Eurod for his own back and making delivery of the wider energy strategy more difficult as a consequence, explicit parameters of what a social licence is are needed. That should not, though, detract from the case for fracking in Scotland. On environmental grounds, we know that shale gas is a high-carbon energy source that emitting large quantities of carbon dioxide and methane. The science of global warming, the mass of our emissions, and our pledge to limit temperature increases to below 2 per cent must lead us to conclude that opening up a new carbon front is unwise, unwanted and unnecessary. The Committee on Climate Change has argued that should anonshare petroleum industry be established in the UK and grow quickly, that would have the potential for significant impact on UK emissions. It also found that accommodating additional emissions 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 Mackay, stated that, 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 in the long run. That 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 investment from the development of the range of renewable energy and storage technologies that we will need to deliver a decarbonised, sustainable and secure energy system in future. Along with energy efficiency and demand reduction strategies, those are the areas in which we must focus our efforts, harness our competitive advantage and secure the jobs and wealth creation that come with it. ONS has shown that, last year, low-carbon industries in Scotland generated £10.7 billion in turnover supported for each three and a half thousand jobs directly and in the supply chain and delivered over £10 million of community benefit. Although the renewable electricity sectors made tremendous progress in recent years, however, much work still needs to be done to decarbonise our overall energy supply, particularly in heat and transport. Given that, fracking is a distraction that we can ill afford. There have, of course, been concerns raised about just how robust a proposed ban on fracking actually is. The current proposals use the planning powers to ensure that any applications for unconventional oil and gas exploration are called in by ministers and will be rejected. Like others, Scottish Liberal Democrats want to see future licensing powers devolved to this Parliament and used to reinforce the clear policy intention. In the meantime, I think that there is a strong argument for building the key plans of the energy strategy, including the ban on fracking, into the national planning framework, as proposed in the Labour and Green amendments. While no Government or Parliament can bind the hands of their successors, any future Government intent on moving away from the current ban should face significant obstacles in doing so, including securing support from this Parliament. Inclusion of the policy in the planning framework, I believe, would provide additional reassurance to those who have been expressing concern and also help to reinforce the effectiveness of the ban. As an aside, while ministers are reviewing the planning framework, they may wish to address the point raised by RSPB in their briefing. Given all that has been said today about meeting our climate change targets and environmental impacts, it is passing strange that the Government's planning policy still, quote, recognises the national benefit of indigenous coal production in maintaining a diverse energy mix. I understand the frustration felt by many at the time that it has taken to reach this point. For the communities facing the prospect of fracking, the weight 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 amendment in my name. We now move to the open debate contributions and speeches of up to five minutes, please. I call Angus Macdonald to be followed by Dean Lockhart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to contribute to this debate today, not least because it has been a contentious issue in my Falkirk East constituency since around 2012, when fracking in Falkirk district first appeared in the radar. Of course, co-bed meeting extraction in the area had already started, which had come in under the radar, with planning permissions being granted by council officers under delegated powers before it ever appeared on a Falkirk council planning committee agenda. However, I do not want to dwell on the specifics of the planning system in Falkirk district today. It could take a while, as my speaking time is short. For that reason, I will not be taking any interventions either. Fracking cannot and will not take place in Scotland. That is the phrase that the energy minister used in his statement in this chamber just a few weeks ago. It is 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 for some time. Personally, I am pleased that those measures have been put in place. I have always been skeptical of those practices and have long been of the view that, if there is any risk whatsoever of environmental damage, fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. Understandably, frustration and emotions have run high throughout the debate on unconventional oil and gas. However, the consultation process, the various ministerial statements along the way and today's debate proves that this Government has taken the right and necessary steps to bring about the strict and effective ban that is needed to protect our environment. That being said, as we can see from today's amendments, there are still those who are pushing for more to be done. However, there is very little in the Green Labour and Lib Dem amendments that I can disagree with. The call by Mark Ruskell and Claudia Beamish to incorporate the Government's position in the next iteration of the national planning framework is, in my view, imperative. I would be keen to hear, if the minister will ensure its inclusion in NPF 4. There are, of course, calls from environmental NGOs to go even further. Perhaps they should be careful what they wish for. I believe that a bill to ban fracking is not necessary, expedient or likely to provide any practical benefits over the approach that the Scottish Government has already adopted. Additionally, of course, any legislation is open to legal challenge and can be overturned by future parliaments. Taking the current approach of an indefinite moratorium is effective in halting fracking and UCG whilst avoiding any unnecessary and costly legal challenges. There are also those on the other side of the argument, as we've heard already this afternoon, who claim that this is a step too far and is going against the potential economic gain that we could perhaps benefit from. That argument could be a tad academic if expert Professor John Underhill, Harriet Watts chief scientist and professor of exploration geoscience, is correct in saying that large-scale onshore fracking would be unviable in the UK anyway and would have a negligible impact upon energy prices. 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. The compression means that the substrata is undulating and wavy, possibly making effective drilling locations questionable. In addition, the UK does not lie flat on the global surface but at an angle adding complications to the undulating structure, which Professor Underhill states means that the UK's rocks will be harder to drill through than those in the US, which are comparatively simple to do. I urge members on the Tory Benches to read Professor Underhill's research, disappointing though it may be to them. It would seem that Ineos and other prospective investors may be 55 million years too late, at least in Scotland. In fact, this chamber debate may well be 55 million years too late. Members will no doubt be aware that the Grangemouth refinery and petrochemical sites are situated within my Falkirk East constituency, and my constituents have more of a direct connection with those industries than most. For decades, those communities have sat cheek by joil with industry and are pleased that the Government has listened to their concerns as well as taken into consideration the needs of industry and made the right decision based on the evidence presented to them. However, I believe that it is 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 sites in Grangemouth, run by Ineos and Petro Ineos, currently employ around 1350 people, with that figure expected to rise to around 1,650 with the acquisition by Ineos of the 40s pipeline system. Additionally, statistics from Scottish Enterprise and Chemical Sciences Scotland suggest that, in Falkirk district, industry and Grangemouth supports over 4,000 jobs directly and indirectly and many more across Scotland. I am confident that the Scottish Government will continue to support those industries in the coming years and decades. As time is short, I will close by saying that, if this effective ban is approved by Parliament this evening, we will have certainty from today. There will be no fracking in Scotland. That is good news for my constituents, good news with regard to climate change and good news for Scotland. I refer to my register of interests 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 of 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 interests of Scotland or in the narrow political interests of the SNP. 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. That could create more than 3,000 highly-skilled jobs and bring £4 billion in additional tax receipts to the Scottish economy, which could be spent on vital public services here in Scotland. Communities across Scotland would benefit from those new jobs, as well as millions of pounds of new community investment. The minister highlighted that the economic benefit of fracking would contribute, in his words, just 0.1 per cent to GDP each year. However, let me remind him that Scotland's economy registered negative growth in 2016, and the latest figures show economic growth of 0.1 per cent—the same level of growth that would be contributed by fracking. With that economic backdrop, the boost that could come from fracking, the boost that would give to the Scottish economy, should be welcomed by the SNP. Instead, however, as fracking industries are 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 that technology exists to allow the safe extraction of reserves subject to robust regulation. Public health bodies in other parts of the UK have concluded that the potential risks to public health associated with extraction are low if 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 40,000 barrels of shield gas from the US every day. As the Royal Society of Edinburgh has quite rightly pointed out, the global carbon footprint of the gas that Scotland imports is far, far higher than on-shore fracking in Scotland. If this Government really wanted to test the safety of fracking in an evidence-led 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 SNP has decided to hide behind a deeply flawed consultation process to justify its politically expedient and populist decision to ban fracking. That is why the SNP's ban of fracking gives rise to wider concerns about how the Government makes policy. Policy-making to attract headlines, policies lacking analysis or supporting evidence, and policy announcements to meet populist demands have become the hallmark of the Government. We have seen the ban on GM crops. A policy decision made without any scientific advice, the proposed citizens' income, a policy that the SNP's own economic advisers have warned against but is being pursued for populist reasons, the proposed nationalised energy company announced to attract headlines at the SNP conference but again without any analysis of how it will work. The list of SNP policy failures is long, and this ban of fracking is just the latest example of the SNP making policy decisions based on its own narrow political interests. It is now time for this Government to start acting in the best interests of Scotland. 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 very much, Presiding Officer. As we have 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. That is the issue for my constituents. Although 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 turn. Let us look at the people speaking out about this. Every charity or lobbying organisation with an interest in the environment is today breathing out a tremendous sense of relief.  That is Tory environmental policy. From the South Lanarkshire against unconventional gas, to the World Wildlife Fund, to the Friends of the Earth, to Fracoff, to Unison Scotland and the Transition Network, there 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 and polluting our water table. There is not to get rid of the myth of any convincing economic case in spite of what those who are promoting fracking say. In my constituency, the economic impact of Brexit, which for South Lanarkshire council could be as much as £1.3 billion lost to the local economy, far outweighs any economic benefit from fracking under my constituents' homes. In Hamilton, Lack Collin Stonehouse, there is a strong movement led by the South Lanarkshire against unconventional gas, and I had many, many representations from my constituents. The public certainly responded to the calls for views when the second largest consultation ever run by the Scottish Government took place. A nation built on a social contract with its people is a nation that is reflective of its people. There was a total of 60,535 valid responses, and 99 per cent, yes, 99 per cent were opposed to fracking. The people in South Lanarkshire and across Scotland had deep concerns about the development of fracking, which is why the Scottish Government put in place the moratorium, while we gathered the evidence needed. Whether the minister took the scenic route or not, I would rather he took the correct route, and that is the route that I believe he has taken. The judgment is now clear. We could not and will not pursue fracking without absolute confidence that it could not undermine public health or climate change targets. More importantly, my constituents have made themselves clear that they said no to fracking. I would like to pay tribute to those constituents to the South Lanarkshire against unconventional gas group, who I had great pleasure in meeting many occasions, but I certainly heard in this Parliament a few months ago to help them to hand over their completed consultations to the minister. It was public action done in a positive way, and they were here to take that opportunity. Their active and committed work to highlight dangerous health risks, the dilution of our climate change goals, all in an effort that will only line the pockets of commercial operators who have no need to think about the longer-term damage that they will cause. We have seen that over and over again. We need to change the record. The payments that some of those companies have promised may never materialise as we have seen before, and they certainly will not cover the cost of the damage, even if it is a test pit, because if it is a test pit and it pollutes the water table, it is polluted, we cannot go back. The biggest concern for my constituents was to their health, especially the health of their children who 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 throat irritation and nosebleeds. That would give you a nosebleed, just reading that, because that is not what my constituents want and I back them 100 per cent. I applaud the Scottish Government and this Scottish Parliament. If we take this decision today as a unified group, with maybe one exception, then I think that that is something that we should be incredibly proud of. We are putting our constituents first, we are putting our environment first, we are putting our community first. That is a huge win for us. It is a huge win for the anti-fracking movement, who have been working for at least six years that I know of on that decision. The Scottish Government has taken the correct approach. It has listened to the evidence, it has listened to the experts, it has listened to our colleagues across the chamber, but more importantly, it has listened to the people and the people have spoken. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I very much welcome the opportunity to speak in this afternoon's debate. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has reached a decision to extend the 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 this source of energy, citing environmental health and climate change concerns. I was not convinced by arguments brought forward by those who favour fracking then any more than I am today. Fracking first came to my attention when I led on environment issues for the Labour Party. I came to the issue willing to engage, and the campaigns within their infancy led at a national level by Friends of the Earth. The briefing from the RSE 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 recognised confusion and a lack of consistency over decisions being taken. 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 evasive, 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 thorough, but we have had years of uncertainty for communities and the industry. We have had a long period of indecision, but I am pleased that tonight we have the opportunity to be clear in our direction of travel and provide a focus for what needs to be done to provide for our energy needs and a modern forward-looking country. Initially, I met environment organisations, local communities and the industry. I was always clear about the unacceptable risks to my region if the 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 in Scotland, where environmental standards are higher and the export market is different. I also have concerns over population density in the targeted areas, largely former cold-field areas, where concerns are 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. There are then few employment opportunities. There is also the prospect of licences being issued in exploratory work beginning along with the accompanying disruption for communities for it then to result in very little results, as it is only question marks over the potential source of energy. The evidence concerning the risk to the environment and health were always inconclusive and could not carry the confidence of communities. Those factors held great uncertainty for communities, which have over years carried the legacy of coal mining, an industry which, while bringing benefits, left a poor health legacy in too many cases. I was also concerned about the potential for a UCG, which was proposed for the first of force. A busy stretch of water was commercial as well as increasing the environmental protections operating. I asked the Government to include that in the initial moratorium, and I was pleased that it responded positively. I am going on to strengthen that. I welcome the minister's statement before recess, but I thought that he could have been firmer in some of his reasoning, which would give greater confidence to his 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 that. I agree with the comments made with Liam MacArthur earlier over his concerns about the use of social licence. I also feel that 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 is well made, and I believe that Labour's amendment today can provide greater security and certainty. Also, the argument opposing the exploitation of unconventional oil and gas can be strongly made on the basis of scientific evidence. While the public consultation was important and very valuable, the minister could have been stronger in setting out the environmental challenges that we face if we are to meet our long-term and interim climate targets. However, I also recognise 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 demands and our climate change targets. However, that is not easy as the demand for energy continues both domestically and in our economy. The considerable difficulties for our energy market of Brexit cannot 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 those challenges in Scotland. However, those are still challenges that must be met, but we can also see opportunities for us to invest in our country's future if we look towards renewables in a much firmer fashion. The Scottish Government's four-month public consultation resulted in 60,535 responses, the second-largest response to a public consultation. 99 per cent of those responses were opposed to fracking and less than 1 per cent 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 the public wants anything to do with it 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. While 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. While such large areas are easier to accommodate and are more readily available in the vast regions of the United States, for example, Scotland does not have the endless quantities of land to spare. Even if it did, wells fail, accidents happen and nearby towns water can easily be contaminated with poisonous toxins. I am sorry, I have got a limited amount of time here. Can I just say to members that there is time in hand if members want to take interventions? That is not directing you in any way, but just to remind members that there is time in hand. Sorry, Mr Beattie, please continue. In April 2011, the people of North West 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 that hydraulic fracturing began about a mile and a half away. Those who experienced the earthquake responded with shock that there had never been earthquakes in the region as far as anyone knew. It did not appear to be a natural occurrence. Ultimately, it was connected with fracturing occurring kilometres below the surface. In 2015, a paper was published in Science Magazine. Its purpose was to study if it were possible to reduce the hazards of induced seismicity or man-made earthquakes created through hydraulic fracturing. Human-induced earthquakes were plaguing large areas of the United States at that time due to fracking. Scientists were examining that if the variables were changed, whether they could control or stop the man-made earthquakes, the scientists were trying to control the consequences of fracking's actions.  Is it not enough to learn from other countries' mistakes? Will Scotland also bring fracking and the potential problems that accompanies it simply to learn the same lesson? My answer simply is no. Rather than subjecting our constituents to the risk of poisonous water and avoidable earthquakes, we need to burn fracking. As my constituency and colleagues well know, I believe that fracking is no place in Scotland. If coal bed methane extraction were to occur within my constituency, the beautiful landscape would be forever marred, and both Musselborough and Midlothian North would run the risk of contaminated water and ruined soil. Such effects would be detrimental to our communities, and we simply cannot stand by and let it happen.  How can one argue that they want to protect the environment when they are in favour of fracking, or are they refusing to recognise the damages that fracking causes, or do they honestly believe that it is a good long-term investment? If they are truly confused and believe that fracking is a solid investment, let me spread some light on the matter. There is little point to fracking in general, but once possibly seems to be a promising opportunity, it has turned into a money pit, even for those in favour. When pro-frackers 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. If a well does not continually expand, within three years, 95 per cent 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 were spending around $42 billion a year to maintain production. The value of gas produced was reckoned to be $32 billion. Such a measurement shows that the companies were actually losing $10 billion a year to perform hydraulic fracturing. Contrary to belief, unconventional gas is already very expensive to produce. Companies need high energy prices to even make a profit and fracking wells drain quickly, continually causing production prices to be high and therefore the cost of fracking to be high. As of 20 October this year, the price of oil at $51.46 a barrel was far below the price that fracking requires to make a profit, which is around $100 a barrel, with fracking nobody wins even those in favour of it. Those statistics come with the assumption that there is natural gas to be found in general, but ignores that not all wells perform. In 2015, the US company Chevron terminated its operations in Romania partly due to underwhelming results. According to the news site RT, globally, Chevron's 2014 failure rate stood at 30 per cent. 16 of the 53 wells drilled were found to have no commercially viable quantities of oil or natural gas. If we allow fracking to occur in Scotland, it will continue to spread like a virus. Since the wells drained quickly, it continually needs to feed into other areas. After knowingly pumping toxic fluids into the ground, fracking destroys what it leaves behind. We should and need to ban fracking without exception, and I support the Scottish Government's ban. Thank you very much, Mr Beattie. I call Jamie Greene to be followed by Ash Denham, Mr Greene. I should say from the outset that I did not wake up this morning when I was 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 sum the very word 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. However, I approach today's debate with view that it is also right and proper to ensure that the Government takes decisions based on evidence and facts, not just opinion polls and email petitions. I fear that the Government's spin machine has decided that the issue of fracking is no longer the place for scientific opinion, and I am 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 that this decision has diminished Scotland's reputation as a world leader in science. On 13 October, he was quoted in The Times as saying, it seems increasingly that the Scottish Government is almost ignoring scientific evidence. We have moved from a situation where we talked about evidence-based policy to a situation where we are looking for policy-based evidence. They determine the policy first and then find the evidence to support it. In fact, just a few weeks ago, I will. Mr Greene, grateful to Mr Greene for taking intervention. How would he respond to accusations that his own Government in London proceeded with fracking in England without undertaking the scientific evidence that we have gathered or asking public opinion? They have done neither. Jamie Greene. I just said that I supported the Government's approach to seeking the views of a wide range of people. The problem is that I have not heard any substantive evidence from the minister on why or how he made his decision. In fact, the minister himself said, and I quote, that I am sure that an unconventional oil and gas industry would work to the highest environmental and health and safety standards. By this logic, does he now think that the unconventional gas extraction would be performed safely or not? Or does he not trust that a regulatory environment in our energy markets is robust enough to regulate the industry? It is entirely unclear what specific scientific evidence the minister has used as a basis to make his decision, and I would be welcome to give way if he is willing to clarify that. I will go through all of it, but I will cite one example. He is quite correct that we have stressed that a well-regulated industry could take place in Scotland. However, even in that context, KPMG indicates that there would be additional climate emissions with a well-regulated industry that would be extremely difficult to mitigate against our annual statutory climate change targets. That is science and that is practical action that we are not going forward with fracking. Jamie Greene. The minister is using environmental targets as a rationale for explaining his scientific evidence. The environmental targets are one thing. I am still yet to hear specific examples in the chamber of why the minister thinks that unconventional gas is safe or not. Still waiting. He uses instead the phrase that there is no social licence for unconventional gas and oil. Is social licence different from a scientific licence? The minister fails to acknowledge completely that, in other countries, advances in technology combined with a strong regulatory environment and a trial-based approach have made extraction safe and sustainable. It is indeed very puzzling that the Scottish Government would hold such strong opposition to this practice, yet they are happy for 40,000 barrels of shill gas to be imported into Scotland every day. I won't. The SNP seems happy for shill 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. I ask 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 but be so appalled by its method of production? Because therein lies the contradiction of this decision. Scotland will not just lose out the jobs of this ban but the inward investment that we greatly need. England is set to receive £33 billion in shill gas investment over the next two decades, and it is all subsidy-free. A blanket ban risks sending critical expertise in hydrocarbon extraction to England or overseas. That sounds familiar. As someone who represents a community with a nuclear power station on its doorstep, I am fully aware of what happens when a Government takes a politically negative view to an energy industry. I respect the continued and lifelong ideological opposition that some have to its very existence, but over the decades, Hunterston has provided Scotland a high volume of energy, a high number of high-quality jobs and high standards in safety. The Government's antipathy towards both nuclear and unconventional gas is ideological and nothing more. As I said in my opening lines of the speech, I am not arguing for a gung-hole, full-steam-ahead approach to unconventional gas extraction, but I believe that this decision is about more than fracking. It is about undermining the ability of communities to decide for themselves, something that I feel strongly about. I also think that it has been poorly presented to Parliament— The member is in his last 30 seconds. The decision has been poorly presented to Parliament, and as a result, call me a cynic perhaps, but this seems to be nothing more than a political decision. Thank you very much. I call Ash Denham to be followed by Neil Findlay. Ms Denham, please. Fracking has been an issue that many of my constituents have been adamantly opposed to for some time. In fact, as a candidate, my position against fracking was an issue that I highlighted during my campaign for election. Today, for those in Edinburgh Eastern, I am going to be very proud to vote in favour of the Scottish Government's ban on fracking. I would also like to take this opportunity to mention a campaign group—our fourth—fractivists from my constituency, who are in the gallery today for their hard work and continued work on this issue. The public consultation on this matter proved that my constituency was not alone. Only 1 per cent of the 60,000 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 prioritised the environment and had 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 per cent of electricity from renewables by 2015. By 2030, the SNP aims for Scotland to have an entirely decarbonised electricity sector. Just earlier this month, on 2 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 are in 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 last year in England, the Tory UK Government intervened in Lancashire Council's fracking ban over turning the decision and riding roughshod over local residents in favour of a shale company. We have already seen what a Conservative Government has done to disabled people, to homeless people, to struggling families and now to local communities. 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 growth at any cost mentality, because that way of thinking and that way of governing would see some fracking jobs created at the expense of the very air that we breathe and the water that we drink. It would see an industry propped up in the short term, while damaging our environment in the long term. Even when threat to our planet is clear, even when the voice of the Scottish public is resolute, 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. However, 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. That clean power will provide electricity and also heating, and that further investment will create jobs while also protecting the environment. Our critics suggest that we are turning our backs on jobs and on profits, but the evidence does not support that. The KPMG report concluded that fracking would bring 1,400 indirect jobs to Scotland at its peak and around £2 billion to £3 billion through to 2062. However, in contrast to that, Scotland's natural environment is valued at more than £20 billion a year, and it supports 60,000 direct jobs alone. To invest in one industry, proven to devastate a much more valuable industry by far, is not a renaissance, it is madness. In reality, the only ones in this chamber that have turned their backs on anyone are the Tories. They have turned their backs on the environment, they have turned their backs on local communities and turned their backs on the will of the Scottish people. If that were not enough, the UK Government might potentially be attempting to re-reserve the EU licensing regime, which should rightfully come to the Scottish Parliament. That cannot happen. The Scottish people have spoken and the Scottish Government has acted. There will be no fracking in Scotland. All the parties in this chamber, except for the Tories, are in favour of this action, proving once again that the best interests of Scotland cannot be trusted in the hands of the Conservatives. The SNP's record today and in our last 10 years of government proves the exact opposite. Today we act in the best interests of Scots, in the best interests of our climate and in the best interests of our future as a nation. Thank you. I call Neil Findlay to be followed by Graeme Dey. Mr Findlay, please. Thanks, Presiding Officer. Since the earliest days of the industrial revolution, the demand for energy has increased exponentially, and areas of my region have been at the centre of Scotland's energy production, coal production in mid and west Lothian, and the world's oil industry began in west Lothian with the shale oilworks. For 10 years, we have had one of the country's biggest wind farms at Black Law, which opened the floodgates to one of the greatest missed opportunities of our times and renewables. So far, well over a century, some of the communities in my region have taken a disproportionate share of the impact of energy production, often leaving a legacy of ill health, environmental degradation and pollution. More often than not, the poorest communities are all too often subjected to unwelcome planning applications and land-use decisions. Developments such as open cask, coal sites, landfill, waste processing and the over-concentration of wind farms are not for some grand principle of providing cheap, renewable, clean energy, but more often than not, little more than the latest opportunity for financial speculation by multinationals and venture capitalists. Those renewable projects should have been locally and publicly owned and run with profits recycled back into the host communities. Of course, it is those communities that would be most affected if we had fracking. I have opposed fracking from the outset precisely for that reason. The fracking companies would be just the latest and a long line of speculators who come into the community promising riches, jobs and benefits only to leave a legacy of environmental damage degraded countryside and little if any community benefit. It might come as a surprise to some, but any assent particularly well known for their philanthropic behaviour. They are known for holding the country to ransom by threatening to close down our biggest refinery. They are known for using their muscle to shaft the workforce. They are known for using their private monopoly to try and undermine a legitimate and responsible trade union for the crime of protecting their members' livelihoods. It is in us who have the most to gain, snapping up licences across the central belt in the north of England. Scottish Government ministers met the company on a dozen occasions in the run-up to the original moratorium. Maybe now we can have the details of those conversations released in the interests of transparency, but I will not hold my breath. I have actively opposed fracking because I have looked in depth at what it has done to communities elsewhere, polluting the water table, affecting the land and food chain, causing public health concerns. 100,000 wells drilled in the US since 2005, using 280 billion gallons of water, which becomes heavily polluted during the process. Those are very serious concerns and they have had an important impact on water supply, on rivers, plants and animal life and ultimately on human health. 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 and air pollution. I do not want to see a single community here affected by this, but I also do not want to see another community in the US or anywhere else affected by it. Let us be clear that it is the political pressure that came about both from Claudia Beamish's bill and the huge public opposition that has forced the Government to act, but we do not have a ban on just a continued moratorium. Prior to the announcement of that moratorium, we had almost radio silence from Government backbenchers, hardly one of them speaking out demanding a ban, but lo and behold, when the continued moratorium was announced, all of a sudden silent, compliant and dutiful backbenchers have found their voices, telling the world that they have all been opposed to fracking all along. Well, if we are, no thank you. Well, if we are now in favour of a ban, if we are now in favour of a ban, well then you go, Ms Martin, if we have got time, I will take your intervention. I am fairly sure that Neil Findlay does not watch the SNP party conference, but if he were to look back—I am right, aren't I?—how many times has fracking been mentioned and overwhelmingly passed by a climate ban on fracking in the SNP party conference? Neil Findlay? How many times have we debated it in here and how many times have we had radio silence from backbenchers off your party? Every time, silence. If we are now all in favour of a ban—I welcome that, I absolutely welcome it now—if we are all in favour of a ban, accept the Tories, and I include Fergus Ewing in that description, then let us take every step that this Parliament allows to make it a real ban, and let us see the Government show its commitment by ensuring that that is as tight as possible. If you do that, you will incur the wrath of Jim Ratcliffe, you will incur the wrath of Ines, you will incur the wrath of the Tory party and probably Fergus as well, but you will get my support, I believe that you will get the support of the overwhelming majority of members of this Parliament, and in doing so, we will join France, Bulgaria and several US states illegally saying no to fracking. Thank you, Mr Findlay. I call Graeme Dey to be followed by Brian Whittle. When it comes time to reflect upon my tenure as an MSP and I do hope that that will be something well into the future, October 3, 2017, we will stand out as a genuine highlight. It was, of course, a day that Paul Wheelhouse announced Scotland would, subject to the support of Parliament, not permit fracking on its soil. As an implacable opponent of hydraulic fractional in Scotland, it was a decision that I warmly welcomed. When the moratorium was announced, I forecast in this chamber that any robust examination of the evidence available from across the globe would lead us to this point. It was therefore something of a relief not only that it did, but that I was spared the possibility of having to vote against the Scottish Government position. Had we today been debating allowing fracking, I would not only have been speaking against the motion, but at a decision time voting against it. For me, for environmental and climate change reasons, fracking is not something that we should go anywhere near. However, October 3 was personally memorable for another reason. That was the evening that I, along with Claudia Beamish and Angus MacDonald, had the enormous privilege of being in the great hall of Edinburgh Castle to see Christina Figueras presented with a shackleton medal to honour her enormous contribution to having the world finally recognise its responsibilities in tackling climate change. More importantly, we heard an utterly inspirational speech from her. I had the further privilege of having a brief chat with Ms Figueras. I will not breach her confidence here, although I suspect that she would not be concerned if I did and reveal the specific detail of what we discussed and what she had to say. However, let's just say that she was well-sighted on the fracking decision, and her message was simple. Well done, Scotland. Keep on doing what you are doing. I recognise that our other voice has raised an opposition to this decision, but I stand with the architect of the Paris climate agreement on this. Of course, Christina Figueras is not the only globally respected figure to have endorsed this decision. Former would-be US presidential contender, Senator Bernie Saunders, who has seen first-hand the impact of fracking across the pond, praised Scotland and challenged his own country to follow our lead. We have all followed tales of the impacts of fracking in the USA, but it has been practised for a decade or so. Let's look at the changes in the mission figures in that time. One study has highlighted a 30 per cent increase in atmospheric methane concentrations between 2002 and 2014 in the US. Although the paper does not attempt to identify the source of methane, this period coincides with the development of unconventional oil and gas. A further study has estimated that 40 per cent of recent growth in atmospheric methane between 2007 and 2014 can be attributed to oil and gas activities. I would argue that that offers a pretty sound reason for supporting this ban. We are told by the UK onshore oil and gas in choosing to ban domestic onshore exploration. The Scottish Government is turning its back on a potential of 3,000 jobs and £6.5 billion of economic benefit. Yet the economic impact research conducted by KPMG, including direct and indirect economic benefit combined through to 2062, would amount to only £3.4 billion cumulatively, maximum, and the number of related jobs direct and indirect would peak at 1,400. It is not insignificant, but nowhere near the figure that was speculated by UCOG, who, with reduced respect, have a vested interest here. The fact is that Scotland is already committed to an energy future that brings with it, financial and jobs benefits. Indeed, we are already well down that road. The renewable sector is currently reckoned of a turnover of £5 billion and supports 26,000 jobs. Why would we jeopardise the natural environment? Whatever other value we place on it is, as Ash Denham noted, worth £20 billion a year to our economy and supports 60,000 direct jobs. Having committed ourselves to a low-carbon future, surely the focus must remain in transitioning away from fossil fuel use and increasing our renewable generation. It was revealed that Parliament rose for recess that, on the first Monday of October, wind turbines in Scotland generated more than double the electricity that 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. If we can remove the blockages to offshore generation in the first and fourth day, we can really hit our targets in this area of renewable energy generation and in a cost-effective way. UK Government research has shown that renewables have the potential to become more cost-effective as a generation source than conventional gas-fired power stations by the mid-2020s. The lifetime cost of onshore wind is estimated to fall to £63 per megawatt hour generated below the comparable cost for gas in the same time frame. Offshore wind costs are also estimated to reduce becoming competitive with gas by 2030. We do not need to frack. For the good of the environment, we should not frack. In a few minutes' time, let us make it clear that Scotland will not frack. Thank you very much. I call Brian Whittle to be followed by Ben Macpherson. He will be the last speaker in the open debate. There is a legitimate debate to be had here, but it has proved now and impossible to cut through the rhetoric, hostility and, quite frankly, nonsense that seems to characterise any discussion of fracking. I hope to try to bring a little bit of light to a debate that has so far contained rather more heat. First of all, we should be clear on what hydraulic fracturing is. Put simply, it is just the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into rock-deep underground, forcing open existing fishers within the rock, allowing oil and gas trapped within it to be forced to the surface. Although often described as unconventional oil and gas extraction, this is something of a misnomer. Fracking is neither a new nor a particularly unconventional method because the first use of fracking in the UK was back in 1965, and by the late 70s it was common throughout the North Sea and the world. Frankly, the technology behind the high wind floating wind farm project that the First Minister recently opened last week, which is really interesting, is decidedly more unconventional than fracking is. One of the most commonly expressed fears—and there has been expressed today— about fracking is the use of chemical additives in the fluid used to fracture the rocks. However, these days more than 99 per cent of the fluid volume tends to be water and sand, so chemical additives equate to less than 1 per cent. Those additives tend to be polyacrylamides, which are deemed to be non-harmful. There is unquestionably been instances where lax regulation and poor environmental protections have led to the use of inappropriate chemicals in the fracking process. However, that is a failure of regulation in monitoring, not of science. Even among the scientists and experts commissioned by the Scottish Government, there is a strong body of opinion that believes that it is possible to have successful onshore fracking programme in Scotland with a strong regulatory and monitoring framework. It is right that we take the utmost care when making decisions like this, when we must always balance risk against rewarding and consider what can be done to mitigate that risk. However, all too often with those issues, we are reduced to a simplistic level that debate is all but useless. Wind power is frequently held up as the epitome of clean, environmentally friendly electricity, but, like every form of energy production, it has its negatives. I am supporting constituents at the moment living close to wind farm who experience issues with water boreholes failing or becoming contaminated as a result of turbine installations. If you pour hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete into the ground and you do not have to be our comedies to recognise that there is a significant potential for disruption to the water table and local water courses, not to mention water contamination, so no form of any production is risk-free. The Scottish Government has demonstrated that it is perfectly happy to accept a degree of risk, but only when it fits with the narrow view of progress. As has already been mentioned, on nuclear power, it will allow no nuclear power stations but let the old ones keep running because, while Scotland needs the base load in the grid to offset the instability of one power, it does not want to hassle the anti-nuclear lobby that will generate any suggestion of building a new, safer, more efficient cleaner nuclear reactors, or in GM crops. No research here, because while we are rightly proud of our globally recognised talent and biological science sector, the Scottish Government would 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 are saying 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 praise for the quality of its lock. If only self-righteousness was an energy source, we could all huddle around Paul Wheelhouse and his cohorts and keep warm. It is no wonder that the SNP is so happy to put up wind farms everywhere. It reminds them of themselves in the way they turn and in whatever direction the wind happens to be blowing at that time. Renewrables are undoubtedly where most of our not all of our power will come from and hopefully not to distant future, but we cannot meet those grand ambitions in a single leap. That is a journey, and we need to be pragmatic about the steps that we take to reach our final goal. Personally, I would like to see a greater research into hydrogen and cell fuel technology, as it is arguably a more sustainable power system for electric vehicles than batteries and means charging. On all those issues, there is nothing but silence from the Scottish Government. Richard Fyman, the Nobel prize-winning physicist, said that science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. That is not a comment about science 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 is why science has trials, that is why it conducts tests and experiments. It might be wrong, but it is still important to try and research and develop to improve. However, time and again, the Scottish Government shy away from this. Time and again, it chooses to drive a policy based on upsetting the fewest number of people for the shortest amount of time. Whatever your position and merits of fracking, we should be wary, Presiding Officer, of taking decisions with long-term implications based on the fear of short-term repercussions. I call Ben Macpherson and then move to closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, like most of the chamber, welcome the Scottish Government's proposition for a strict and effective ban on fracking, using planning powers to ensure applications for unconventional oil and gas extraction that are considered in line with that Scottish Government position, and that very strong position that fracking cannot and will not take place in Scotland. That decision is a victory for campaigners and communities, including the many campaigners in Edinburgh, Northern and Leith, and I, too, pay tribute to our fourth campaigners. 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. Those who argue in favour 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 about the common good of Scotland and the society and economy that we are trying to build. The Tory opposition to this ban is just another demonstration of its economic incompetence. 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 0.1 per cent of GDP, only £1.2 billion over the decades that would go ahead. Put that in comparison to the tourism industry, for example, that could be impacted by fracking, which has an annual revenue of £11 billion to the Scottish economy and makes up 4.2 per cent of GDP. Compare that Tory position with LSE research that a no-deal position from the Tories on Brexit would see Scotland lose 30 billion GVA. Changes to subsidy arrangements on renewables have put one in six renewables jobs at risk and continue to negatively impact our growing and strong renewables industry. That is why I strongly support the Liberal Democrat amendment today. As WWF has said, if Scotland were to allow fracking, that would fly in the face of a much welcomed ambition and ambition that the Tories apparently support of securing half of all of Scotland's energy needs from renewables by 2030. We need to support our renewables energy sector, a sector that has the capacity to generate much more onshore wind resource, a part of the renewable sector that the Tories have been damaging through their bad decisions on the contract for difference subsidy arrangement at Westminster. We have 25 per cent of Europe's tidal energy resource, 10 per cent of Europe's wave energy resource and 25 per cent of its offshore wind resource. We do not need fracking. We have huge renewable potential in Scotland that is still to utilise. I also support the Labour amendment and the Greener amendments that will strengthen the position and build on the legally robust evidence-based approach that the Scottish Government has taken. The decision that I hope Parliament will make tonight is a move in favour of the next generation as well as the benefit of the status quo. 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 to tackle climate change. It will also represent the democratic will of the Scottish people who voted primarily for political parties who were sceptical of fracking. It will be the democratic will, as expressed in the 60,000 consultation responses that were made. I note that only 1 per cent of those responses were in favour of fracking, and the Tories are in favour of fracking. Does that demonstrate once and for all that the Tories only stand up for the 1 per cent in our society? In Parliament today, let us send a clear message that this Parliament opposes fracking, both now and in the future, not just for the benefit of those of us today but for the benefit of our environment, the wider economy and the development of our economy, public health and the common good. Please support the motion. Thank you very much. I call Liam McArthur. I will close in speeches to close the liberal Democrats. Five minutes are thereabouts, please, Mr McArthur. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It has been a strange debate. Angus MacDonald wanted to take us back to the years in epoch, complaining that this debate had not been scheduled 50 billion years ago. He may wish to take up with the bureau in due course, Murdo Fraser, acting as the self-appointed spokesperson for the GMB in Jim Sillars in a political realignment not seen since the Eocene epoch. The background to the debate around this issue in Parliament was helpfully set out by Claudia Beamish, reflecting on the passage of her member's bill, the vote in this Parliament secured support from ourselves, from Labour and from the Greens, and a number of members, Mark Ruskell and others, who have pointed to the development of the consensus out with the building and the work done by a number of NGOs, but also a number of very genuine community and grassroots organisations. I said in my opening speech that I very much understand and sympathise with the frustration that they have felt about the length of time that it has taken to get to this point. I am sure that many of them will continue campaigning on this issue, but it is worth putting on record their contribution to getting us to where we are now. The four areas of concern that were reflected 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 in light of the epidemiological impacts being so uncertain. A precautionary principle really was only the only appropriate approach. In relation to the social impacts, we had testimony and insights from front-line communities, Angus Macdonald, Neil Findlay, Ben Macpherson and others, I think, pointed to the emotions in those communities about the impact that fracking might have, not least in relation to housing. Claudia Beamish drew quite rightly the parallel with many of those communities that were still enduring the on-going impacts of the open-cast mining industry, but, perhaps inevitably, the focus of much of the debate was around the second two areas here, environmental and economic. Although a series of contributors from the Tory benches drew attention to what they saw, there was a lack of scientific evidence for the position adopted by the Government and backed by other parties in the chamber. The minister was also right to point to the fact that the Tories appear to be supportive of fracking even before they gathered the evidence, let alone public views on the issue. It is fair to say that scientific evidence on this is always going to have an area of doubt about it. Public policy needs to be framed, guided by science, but reflecting the fact that scientific evidence comes in many forms. The UK Committee on Climate Change has been consistent in its warnings about the likely rise in emissions, the risk to our climate change targets and the offsetting effects of needing to make emissions reductions elsewhere. Mark Ruskell was right to say that the displacement here would be more from renewables than it would be from coal. In an energy future, where it is secure, sustainable and affordable, renewable storage, energy efficiency and demand reduction must be the direction that we are going in. Renewables in relation to job creation as well. The economic impacts that are far more profound and important in terms of jobs and wealth creation than is the case with fracking. The KPMG report was cited by many, and I think that that sounds a light on the extent to which perhaps the economic benefits of fracking have been overstated. It would appear that Murdo Fraser and some of his colleagues appear happy to ban onshore wind but let rip fracking, so they do not want a wind farm either in their back garden or in their backfield, but they are quite happy to see fracking taking place underneath their community or village. The Tories need to be clear where they would see the sectors bearing the impact of the offsetting emissions falling, because that is a tangible effect on what the economic impact of allowing fracking to take place would be. As somebody who was refereed by John Underhill when he was refereeing in the East of Scotland league, I can say with some certainty that I did not always agree with the decisions that he made, but I would bound to his understanding of matters geological. He is quite right to suggest that the economic benefits of fracking have been overstated for a number of very sensible and geological reasons. In conclusion, for environmental, economic, health and social reasons, we should not be opening up a new carbon front.  I look forward to Parliament backing the ban this evening through the Government's motion and through backing the Lib Dem, Labour and Green amendments. It is often said that politicians are behind the curve when it comes to public opinion, but it seems that we are 55 million years behind the geological reality, according to Harriet Watts chief scientist Professor Underhill, as noted by Angus MacDonald this afternoon. It has been over two years since I first moved a motion in the chamber highlighting the significant public opposition to new methods of fossil fuel extraction such as fracking, and calling on the Parliament to implement a ban on unconventional fossil fuel extraction in Scotland to protect our communities, whom I cannot thank enough for their involvement opposing us, our environment and respect our international climate change commitments. At that time, not one other party in the chamber supported my call. That day, Shale Gas International gleefully declared that the Green Party failed to ban fracking in Scotland yesterday, and that Alison Johnstone 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. 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. The article went on to say that John Swinney, then finance secretary, Labour's Ian Gray and Tory MSP Murdo Fraser all rejected her call for a ban. I warmly welcome the fact that four out of five parties in the chamber are firmly opposing this technology today. I would politely point out to Mr Finlay that he voted against my motion calling for a ban on fracking on 7 May 2014. Greens have always recognised the uncertainties and risks that fracking and other new fossil fuel technologies posed. The Government's research 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. While that evidence-gathering period was under way, Greens and others have been on the front line, standing shoulder to shoulder with the central Scotland communities who would be most impacted by fracking. I have spent time with many others in packed community halls where the public raised their concerns with developers, with our forth, 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. Greens also came close to securing a two-kilometre buffer zone between communities and fracking developments when the last national planning framework was up for discussion. I almost won that vote in committee, but the conveners' vote swung it. I commend Murdo Fraser on being consistent on this issue, although he is consistently wrong. I welcome the Government's announcement that it will ban fracking, but, as Mark Ruskell has highlighted, we need to ensure that the ban extends beyond the lifetime of this Government and is subject to robust parliamentary scrutiny. Placing a clear statement opposing fracking in the upcoming national planning framework will ensure that the ban can't simply be overturned by a future minister's signature on a letter to planning authorities but must undergo cross-party scrutiny in Parliament. For that reason, we will be supporting the Labour amendment, which, along with our own, notes the importance of using the national planning framework to ensure that long-term ban. Liam McArthur rightly noted that our future lies in investing in our renewable energy industries, and Greens will also be supporting the Liberal Democrat amendment today. The Green amendment goes further. It calls for the Scottish Government to use its powers over oil and gas licensing when those 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 ahead. For those that will argue that gas might be lower carbon than coal, fair enough, but it is a stretch to far to place that within the low-carbon economy. That is like saying, I would like to lose weight, so I will forgo a fresh cream cake and I will just have a wee plate of chocolate biscuits instead. I am pretending that that is health food. It is a stop gap. It is one that would divert much-needed skills and investment from our abundant renewables. Fossil fuels are estimated by the international energy agency to receive subsidies of £380 billion a year. If only similar incentives were offered to develop renewables, it astonishes me that the so-called party of big business does not get the economics, no wonder your tree is no longer green. Renewables can sustain livelihoods and communities and provide for our energy needs for the long-term. As the minister noted, Lord Brownchayre of the fracking company Codrilla and a key UK Government adviser and Professor John Underhill, they have agreed that the economic opportunities of fracking are overhyped. I will wrap up there. I will be supporting the Green amendment. Jackie Baillie closed for Labour for six minutes for their abouts, Ms Baillie. There is no doubt that we are heavily reliant on gas for our energy needs, accounts for some 55 per cent 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. We know that currently about 50 per cent of our gas is imported from places like Norway and Belgium, but also from places like Qatar. Security of supply must be an issue that should concern us in the medium and long term, so that we guard against our supply being vulnerable to instability in some of the countries from whom we import gas. So overreliance on imports does not give us security of supply, but all of that said, I do not think that onshore fracking is the answer. There are a number of different approaches that we need to take, but my starting point is that everything that 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 should not let up on our focus on renewables either, because renewables, although they will not provide for all of our energy needs, they are an increasing and welcome part of our energy mix. So in that overall context, it does seem to me a little bit perverse that we should want to use another fossil fuel that would run contrary to everything that we have said in this chamber. 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 do not want to repeat that, but I want to talk exclusively about the economic impact. I think that many of us in this chamber, contrary to what others might think, are actually quite pragmatic. If the jobs and economic growth had been significant, we would have needed to weigh that up very carefully indeed. At 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. There were many claims—many of them stellar claims—made for the economic benefits of fracking for jobs and our economy. There were many claims made about what it would deliver in the form of cheap fuel that would help us tackle fuel poverty. Don't get me wrong, both of those 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. Let's consider the KPMG report. If we went for fracking, the estimated spend in Scotland over the next 45 years would be £2.2 billion. That's £48 million a year. The lowest estimate of total Scottish spend is £0.5 billion, and that's £11 million a year. That's not a huge amount of money. If we then consider the tax take, something that should now 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. Just pause and work that out. £140 million over 45 years is about £3 million a year. That's not going to make a significant difference. Peak employment is about 1,400 jobs. The lowest estimate is 470 jobs. Not all of those jobs are for the entirety of the 45 years, but will depend on production and scale of development. Once that is undoubtedly better than having no jobs, that plus the tax take and the spending the economy needs to be set against potential environmental impacts and the key question of whether that is worth the risk. There are risks, some of which have been outlined by Neil Findlay and others in their contribution to the chamber. I am not convinced that, with the numbers in the KPMG report, that represents such a significant economic impact that we should proceed with fracking. Others say that fracking will provide us with a cheap form of fuel and we should be able to tackle fuel poverty. Nobody would wish that more than me, but I note the observation in the Royal Society of Edinburgh's paper, whose briefing was particularly helpful, that it would not be any cheaper as we are part of the open market. Finally, much mention has been made in this debate about respecting the science. 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. Labour has wholeheartedly supported the member's bill that was put forward by my colleague Claudia Beamish. I think that it has been, undoubtedly, very helpful and encouraging the Scottish Government to do more. I am pleased that this evening the Scottish Government will accept our amendment that places fracking within the national planning framework so that it cannot be changed at a whim by ministers but requires a vote of this Parliament to overturn. A step short of a legislative ban, but nevertheless very welcome and something that we are pleased to support. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The SNP's position on fracking has been nothing short of impractical and badly principled. Sadly, nothing in this debate has shown it to be otherwise. For years now, the SNP has diverted on fracking, and now swaves of a central belt will miss out on what should have been the gold rush of this century. As has been pointed out, community benefit of over 600 million could have been plowed into these areas. 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. Not only is it the central belt that they are letting down, but thousands of skilled workers from the oil and gas industry, particularly in the north-east, will have another door of opportunities slammed in their faces. Perhaps Labour might reflect on that the next time they speak of energy sector job losses. As Dean Lockhart correctly pointed out, reversing this decision would have attracted £6.5 billion of investment, created over 3,000 jobs and generated nearly £4 billion in tax revenues. Shame on the Scottish Government for turning down a fantastic chance for so many Scots. High-quality, highly skilled jobs would have taken in Scottish talent and boosted our young people's chances and aspirations. Those skills will now develop in England. Labour's position again is all over the shop but not reflecting the shop floor. Claudia Beamish and her colleagues now choose to side with the Greens and it would appear that they only listen to their unions when they want to stop rather than create work. However, the debate was not just about communities and the economy missing out, but about our environment. Yet, even on this subject, Mark Ruskell and the Greens positioned smacks of hypocrisy. We know that a shift to natural gas from coal has cut more than 2 billion tonnes of CO2 in the last decade. That is over 70 per cent more successful than emissions reduced through renewable energy. And even before a 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 that produces the products that we use in our everyday lives. Without the chemicals produced at Grangemouth, it is nearly impossible to get through a day without using multiple products derived from gas. Such products from shampoo, clothing, contact lenses and washing powder all contain gas derivatives. I am not sure about the rest of the chamber, but I for one am keen to maintain a basic level of hygiene. So whether for energy or product, denying Scotland the security of its own supply is also denying the savings to our consumers. From fuel poverty to rising household expenses, the consequences of this decision will be costly. Yet the SNP knows this and continues to import 40,000 barrels of fracked shale gas every day. As one of my colleagues noted, the Royal Society of Edinburgh has pointed out that the global carbon footprint of the gas that Scotland imports will be far higher than for any onshore production in Scotland—utter hypocrisy, Deputy Presiding Officer. However, the SNP does not care for facts and are happy for it to happen somewhere else as long as it is not in their backyard. As Murdo Fraser pointed out, a point ignored by the minister and his colleagues in their offerings today is that senior members of the SNP and members of their own scientific panel have real concerns over this decision and call for proper engagement with the industry. So why will they hold a poll comprising of two lobbying groups over the bounced evidence that my colleague Jamie Greene calls for? We need to carefully consider what sort of message this ill-thought-out ban sends to the world. 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. 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? No, Deputy Presiding Officer, it's just sheer hypocrisy. Thank you, Mr Burnett. You have some spare time, Mr Healhouse Minister, to wind up the Government up to 5.15, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. And we are reaching the culmination of nearly four years of carefully considered investigation into unconventional oil and gas. Unlike the characterisation of the members to my left, I wish to thank the members of the chamber for a lively and informed debate, 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 and Parliament. Just a breath was taken away by Alexander Burnett by closing remarks there, suggesting that this was an opinion poll. We've specifically said that it was not an opinion poll, but it was a consultation open to all the people of Scotland, stakeholders and indeed internationally, and 60,500 people took part. People did take part internationally in the consultation, but we have specifically focused, as I'm sure members will understand, in the responses from those who are in Scotland. I have indeed heard enough from the Conservative benches today. I will respond to the points that have been raised by Conservative members in debate, so they are not going to be forgotten. Throughout this process, we have been fully committed, as I say, to a balanced, informed debate. We have clearly and transparently sought out and made publicly available impartial, independent research evidence, including science, on the potential impacts of unconventional oil and gas. We have encouraged and empowered everyone with an interest to express their views on that evidence. We have recognised 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. As other members have done specific groups, I want to thank everybody, whether they were for or against unconventional oil and gas, for taking part in the exercises that we have commissioned and for the export evidence that has been provided to us. We have scrutinised that evidence and we have carefully considered the response to our consultation. On 3 October, we set out a position and put in place a robust and effective ban on unconventional oil and gas in Scotland. A decision on unconventional oil and gas in Scotland does not exist in isolation. It must be viewed within the context of our longer-term ambitions for energy. A number of members have made that point, and I fully recognise it, also in respect of manufacturing in the Scottish economy more generally, and, of course, our climate change responsibilities. Jackie Baillie made a number of very important points about offshore oil and gas. She is absolutely right. It is an important industry to support. It provides three quarters of our primary energy needs, and we require to support the industry. Osh oil production of oil and gas in North Sea has developed over the last half century as 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 exists in Scotland. I will in a moment, if Mr Harvey will forgive me. Jackie Baillie was also right that 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 that the skillsets 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. As those changes unfold, we will have a moral responsibility to tackle climate change and an economic responsibility to prepare Scotland for new low-carbon opportunities and a social responsibility to help those in most need access to affordable energy. In our final energy strategy, we will outline the role that gas infrastructure can play in that future energy system, including the opportunities for heat networks, low-carbon or zero gases such as biogas and hydrogen. In this context, I note with the interest to UK Government's clean growth strategy and its renewed, if rather belated but welcome, interest in carbon capture usage and storage. Under the right conditions, this technology has the potential to support a new industry in Scotland that would not only exploit Scotland's geological and industrial resources, but would do so while contributing to our mission to tackle climate change. We will work to ensure that UK funding for industrial decarbonisation reflects the scale of ambition for important Scottish industrial clusters, such as at Grangemouth, as well as the ambition for new low-carbon sectors in the economy. Achieving our vision for energy is also crucial to our efforts to tackle fuel poverty. As announced by the First Minister, the Scottish Government is developing plans for an energy supply company that will support our efforts to tackle fuel poverty and help to achieve our ambitious climate change targets. A number of mentions—I mentioned John Brown, Lord Brown and myself, Alison Johnstone just recently mentioned him as well. I just want to give the actual quote that Lord Brown has mentioned, bearing in mind that he was the former chairman of Quadrilla. 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. KPNG further went on to say, it is worth noting that, given limited recoverable volumes, UK unconventional oil and gas outputs would only represent a fraction of the supply to the global market. Further more, the scale of development in Scotland will be much lower than that in the US, and hence Scottish unconventional oil and gas is unlikely to have an impact on global energy prices. That finding suggests that there would be no noticeable effect on energy costs for households. I noticed that the Conservatives have not made that point today to any extent. I think that they already know that the game is up on that point, but they have made it very loudly since 3 October, so hopefully they will finally be convinced. I will bring in Mr Harvey if I may. Patrick Harvie I am 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 are doing now with onshore shale reserves, has he come to a view yet as to what proportion of existing fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground unburned in order to achieve our climate change objectives? I am happy to take a discussion with Mr Harvey in due course, but I really want to focus on the debate that we are having today, which is about not creating a new source of, through unconventional oil and gas, a new source of high-carbon energy. However, looking beyond the energy strategy, Scotland's manufacturing chemicals industry continues to play a crucial role in the economy, and we will continue to give that industry strong support. I am turning to the points that have been made in my final few minutes that have been made by members. I want to highlight a few that have been made by the Conservatives to start with. I said in response to Murdo Fraser that he has failed to acknowledge that 63 per cent of gas produced in the UK is produced in Scotland by 8.5 per cent of the population. Scotland is a net exporter of gas, Mr Fraser, and although we do import ethane to help with Ineos and Grangemouth, we are a significant exporter of gas. Members were probably shocked that those who were not in the chamber should know that, at the point that I mentioned, the biggest threat to the Scottish economy being Brexit, Mr Fraser was laughing at that point, failing to acknowledge the 80,000 jobs that may be put at risk by a hard Brexit, and also ignoring the evidence in today's herald, which suggests that up to 30 billion of impact in the Scottish economy is totally ignored by the Conservatives in their response. If the Conservatives believe that the economic impact is important, they should acknowledge that, and they should be acting now to prevent a hard Brexit. I want to pay tribute to Claudia Beamish. We may be in a different position in terms that she would have set out initially to intend to have a ban. I want to endorse the position of the Labour amendment, indeed the Green amendment and the Liberal Democrats today. We will take steps to enshrine this position, subject to the strategic environmental assessment. We will take steps to enshrine this position, in the national planning framework. However, I want to thank Claudia Beamish for her courtesy and her engagement with her on this issue, and her hard work in terms of delivering her consultation. I will happily discuss with Ms Beamish time permitting the issue of the co-operative models in renewables. It is something that we share and are interested in, and I would be keen to work with her on that. Mark Ruskell summed