Hansard

They are two different processes, as Ms Johnstone herself pointed out when she complained that one can move easily to the other in the regulatory framework.

Secondly, although the UK Government rates incentive in England seems a rather blunt instrument, we should be careful not to dismiss the idea of community benefit were onshore extraction ever to proceed. After all, we accept the idea that there should be community benefit from onshore wind and opencast coal mining, so perhaps we should not dismiss it out of hand in this case.

Primarily, though, we cannot support the motion’s core proposal for an outright ban. Of course, as the Green motion says, we have to meet our targets under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, and the Labour amendment makes that clear. However, we have to take the public with us, and that means being able to demonstrate how we will secure our energy supply as we transition to a balanced but decarbonised energy economy.

In a recent briefing in the Parliament, Professor Lunn of the University of Strathclyde demonstrated that, even if all the renewables targets to which Mr Swinney referred are met by 2020, there will still be a 13 gigawatt hour gap in energy production. Central to those figures is the loss of base-load generation and the fact that 40 per cent of energy consumption is currently gas-fired heating. Cockenzie is closed, Peterhead is two-thirds mothballed, and Longannet might be at the mercy of new European Union directives. The replacement of Torness and Hunterston is currently vetoed by ministers. Commercial carbon capture seems further away than we had hoped. It is not clear where our future base-load is coming from.

Meanwhile, investment in offshore wind projects is, at best, delayed, for whatever reason, and we have also seen significant withdrawals from marine power projects. We urgently need a hard-headed, realistic, and comprehensive plan for how we transition to a decarbonised energy market while protecting the security of energy supplies, including but not only electricity generation.

Having closed down the eminently sensible option of another generation of nuclear power, we are in no position to shut down another potential energy source, especially when we do not have the scientific evidence for what reserves are available. We should, however, proceed with great caution, hence our consistent support for stronger planning guidelines for shale gas extraction. Nor should we allow ourselves to be taken in by the idea that shale gas is a panacea that will cut energy costs. Alison Johnstone’s motion is right about that, and that is one reason why we cannot support the Tory amendment this afternoon. Cutting energy bills needs reform of the market and action on excessive profits by the big six companies.

We should also not forget that shale gas is an industrial feedstock as well as an energy source. It is not so long since the Parliament supported a deal that kept the Ineos plant at Grangemouth open. That deal is exactly about using shale gas as raw material in a manufacturing enterprise that is of economic significance to this country. That fact was made very clear to us when we saw the impact that the temporary closure of Grangemouth had on gross domestic product figures for that quarter.

The Government’s amendment founds on planning policy that we have not yet seen, and the Government refuses to face up to the fact that it continues to miss all its world-beating climate change targets. However, with regard to the crux of the debate, which is how to proceed, our position is similar to the Government’s, so if by some curious and unexpected twist of parliamentary arithmetic, the Government’s amendment survives and ours falls, we will support the amended motion in the final vote. However, we prefer our own amendment and will prefer it in the first instance tonight.

I move, as an amendment to motion S4M-09927, to leave out from “opposition” to end and insert

“concern in relation to fracking and calls on the Scottish Government to introduce robust national guidelines for all forms of unconventional gas extraction; agrees that unconventional gas extraction would not drive prices down for hard-pressed consumers, rendering a price freeze and reform of the energy market urgent; believes that renewable energy as a growing part of a diverse energy mix makes Scotland’s energy supply more secure and provides new jobs and businesses in the renewable energy sector as well as helping Scotland hit its carbon reduction targets; supports new community ownership models to help Scotland meet its renewable energy targets, benefit local economies through the creation of green jobs and address the threat of fuel poverty, and believes that Scotland must develop an energy policy that balances its energy needs with its climate change and carbon reduction targets as it is essential that the Scottish Government meets its targets under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.”