06/10/2016 Scotland 2016

A controversial method of capturing coal gas from underground is banned

Was that the sensible move for the environment

or a missed opportunity for the economy?

The Scottish government is banning the extraction of gas by burning

Scotland's Childrens' Commissioner wants more protection for children

And after the fire, the blueprints for the restoration

of Glasgow's School of Art go on public display.

The controversial practice of underground coal gasification

The technique involves burning difficult to mine coal under

the ground and capturing the resulting gas as it

The Scottish Government said they were waiting for an independent

review of the technique before making their decision.

The man behind that report said that a ban was the logical move.

Because of the potential impact that underground coal gasification could

have in terms of climate and the operational experience that the

industry has had, the nature of the regulatory regime and also the

engagement of the public as well as the management of liabilities, all

of these factors are at this point not in the perfect shape.

Joining us now to discuss the issue are Ivan McKee from the SNP

and Alexander Burnett from the Conservatives.

Good evening. I want to ask you, what was the justification for this

decision? The justification was based on independent scientific

evidence in the report completed by Campbell Gemmill, which identified a

number of problems with the technology, the Scottish government

said they would take an independent scientific survey and I believe

Alexander Burnett said in the last day or so that we should take the

evidence of the scientific survey and base a decision on that and that

is what the government has done. If we look at the evidence that

Campbell Campbell has, he has looked at where these processes are

operating and very few operate worldwide and there is nothing

operating at scale and when they have operated in Australia it has

caused problems. And there is a public expense afterwards with the

cleared up. And they leave a mess behind and it is not environmentally

friendly so for a number of public safety, environmental and worker

safety and other reasons, it makes perfect sense for the government to

have invented this. Alexander Burnett, what do you make of the

environmental threat posed? Would not be responsible of the government

to go ahead with such severe warnings? Not at all, it is blatant

hypocrisy, to encourage companies to be investing in Grangemouth whilst

forcing them to be importing shale gas or not even looking at the

opportunity to develop UCG is passing the buck to somebody else.

Why is it right to fail to create jobs in Scotland whilst paying to

create jobs elsewhere? Looking specifically at UCG, it was said it

would expose workers to toxins, cause soil contamination and now the

of those things are concerning to you? They certainly are and this is

about developing new technology and if you look at the report, the

earliest UCGs occurred in 1912, people have been trying to make this

technology work and in Australia there were issues and if you look at

the report it shows the problems they experienced were on the coal

seams less than 600 metres deep and that would not be allowed with

regulation here. In Scotland we have very good experience from the North

Sea and the oil and gas technologies of understanding how drilling works

and the problems associated with that and how to ameliorate risks. We

need to look at the experience we have and use that make sure we can

use that to our best ability by providing and much-needed boost to

the economy. The report did cite this process as having a history of

incidents of pollution elsewhere. Apart from Australia, either other

examples of this has been used and could it be different in the

Scottish landscape? Alexander Burnett made the point, they have

been trying for 100 years and have not managed to get this right, apart

from Australia it has been tried in the old Soviet Union, not somewhere

well known for environmental or health and safety records and even

it is bad there and it has been tried recently in Australia and

Alexander wants to try this process that is not proven to work anywhere

in the last 100 years in a densely populated part of the Central belt

of Scotland and it is ridiculous, and I am amazed with the evidence

today, that he and the Tories are pushing this line that we should be

guinea pigs in Scotland for this time of technology and it is

different from working in the North Sea. Different process and a

different environment and to suggest it is the same, we could transfer

the same processes, is ridiculous. It is viewed as cleaner than coal

mining, what other options do we have? Where are we with carbon

capture? Carbon capture, there was the plan in place to build the

carbon capture plant in the north-east and that was killed off

by the UK government by pulling the funding so when we look at that, the

future is environmental, Scotland is making huge strides recognised

worldwide as a world leader in renewable energy and that is a

direction we should be going in for energy supplies going forward. Do

you take anything forward from the arguments coming from Cluff Natural

Resources, who wanted to carry this out, that this is a missed

opportunity for business and jobs? Absolutely not, it is ridiculous to

pollute the environment and pose health and safety issues and worker

safety issues and try an unproven technology in a densely populated

part of Scotland, it is ridiculous. It does not stand up at all.

Alexander, any support for this in the Firth of Forth? People will have

been supportive of the jobs and benefits. Ivan McKee stood on the

platform for the election in providing jobs for his constituency

and across the country and people will be disappointed again at the

hypocrisy of the first opportunity they have to deliver jobs and bring

in nearly ?6 billion to the economy, they will shun that and to talk

about carbon capture, it is completely hypocritical to say that

UCG, we should not be looking to see the possibilities of UCG because it

is not proven yet at the same time Ivan McKee wants to spend ?1 billion

on carbon capture storage, which is equally unproven. That is why that

was stopped, the cost was far greater than the benefits of

bringing in UCG. Another argument in favour of UCG is it gives energy

security and independence for the country, is that not something that

might be valid as your party looks to planning an independent Scotland?

Absolutely not, the future is renewable energy and Scotland is

making great strides in the percentage of energy generated from

that and that is where we should focus our direction and energy and

investment and that technology will create a huge number of jobs rather

than something that is risky and proven to be environmentally unsafe.

Are you confident it could be secure enough and consistent enough? I

think UCG is neither, it is not a process that will generate a lot of

jobs anyway. And technologies... That is wrong. It has not been

proven to work at also investing money and time and not from any

point if you does not make sense. Alexander, the Conservative

government at Westminster gave the go-ahead for fracking in Lancashire

and this was against the wishes of the local council. Is this an issue

the UK and Scottish governments are travelling and completely different

directions on? Are you concerned about that going forward for the

security of our energy and we are feeding into the National Grid but

seems to diverse opinions about how we get our energy? We don't look at

the decisions that Westminster is making, we look at the decisions we

make in the position we want with what is best for Scotland and on

this issue, developing new technology, providing jobs and

security of the economy, giving ourselves energy security and

supporting businesses such as Ineos, bringing a lot of jobs in and

prosperity to those parts of Scotland, we think that is in the

best interest of Scotland. What other countries around the world and

across the border choose to do is their own but we are pleased to see

that in Westminster they are still being open-minded to some of these

technologies and are prepared to try things. I think we're being very

open minded and that is why we took the time for the scientific survey,

which Alexander Burnett called for ballot result has come back and be

progressing on the basis of the scientific evidence that is solid

and indicates this technology is absolutely not to be implemented in

Scotland. We have to leave it there. Thank you, both of you.

Celtic may have made a thirteen year old boy's dream come true,

by selecting him in an under-20 side this week.

The club say they're taking good care of him and will ensure he's not

But it may not be the same for other budding footballers.

Scotland's Children's Commissioner has called for regulation to stop

the exploitation of children by professional football clubs.

Tam Baillie spoke to us just before we came on air.

He made it clear he wasn't talking about any specific clubs

about his concerns over treatment of young footballers.

These are long-standing concerns added has been prompted by a

petition which has been raised in Parliament which has been there for

over six years and that is why I got drawn into this because the initial

concerns were around clubs not allowing children to play for their

schools while they were signed to the firms. The SPFL moved on that

and that is good and it has taken them a while to take away that

option the clubs to prevent youngsters from playing with their

school team but there are some -- there remain significant issues and

outstanding issues and the first is to do with children signing forms at

age 15 and being held to those up to the age of 17 on the basis that

their skills, they might be late developers but really that is about

the club is holding onto those young people. The other issue when signing

contracts, and there are allegations, reported allegations,

of youngsters being paid ?1 every week and HMRC are looking at that

and I welcome that and from time to time there are reports of transfers

of children under the age of 16 being subject to those transfers

which are outside any other guidance and any other regulations within

SFA. I have pointed this out and disappointingly they have not taken

action. The SFA and the SPFL have released a statement and they say

they are surprised by these allegations first of all and also a

number of improvements have been made to youth football and the

players can only enter into contracts when they become

professionals. This is not permissible prior to school leaving

age. Have these issues been reported to the SFA? They have. Not just the

SFA, reported through Parliament and indeed in November there is a

hearing through the petitions committee and an opportunity for the

SFA and the SPFL to put their case. I maintain that there are

significant outstanding issues which have not been resolved and where to

my mind the SFA and the SPFL have been intransigent and they are

either incapable or unwilling to improve the treatment of children in

professional football clubs and indeed, my preference is that there

would be a self-regulation and football authorities would take this

in hand and in the absence of that, I am in a position where I want to

recommend and have recommended external regulations and, in fact,

Scottish government takes some cognizance of what has happened with

children and their involvement with professional clubs. We will come

back to that. The SFA and SPFL have asked for evidence of real pitches.

To be provided. Is it something you will be willing to do? I have

already done that and with transfers there was evidence given in

Parliament in 2011 by a football club. They say improvements have

been made since then? I have no evidence of that and there are other

incidences which have been reported in the press which I have brought to

the attention of the SFA and has been no response. It is very

disappointing because things affect, it puts a price on the head of

children and we really should not be operating in that way. Let us move

on to what kind of framework and regulation you would like to see and

who should police that. Self-regulation is best, if there

was an opt out for 15, 16 and 17-year-olds in any contracts they

sign, that would be helpful. It will also be useful if the SFA or SPFL

had regulations which ensured that young people on contracts were paid

at least the minimum wage. And also I think they have to take seriously

these reports when there are transfers that are out with the

regulations of the SFA and to date I have not seen any action on that and

they have written to the SFA and SPFL.

Parents are ultimately responsible for the well-being of their children

so they should be the ones looking out for their own children the end

of the day. If you want your child to be excellent at something, they

will have to do that through a professional club. Absolutely. And

we want to nurture talent and ensure that the dreams and aspirations of

our children and young people are realised but with that opportunity

comes responsibility and we have to make sure that we honour our

responsibilities to the children, nurturing their talent. I welcome

any further moves in the football authorities to ensure that the best

interests of children are always up for most and it is not to do with

monetary game, which it sometimes seems to be. Thank you for coming

in. -- monetary gain. A new perspective on Glasgow's

School of Art is being unveiled 3D visualisations of

the fire-damaged Mackintosh Building have been created to assist

the restoration project. But it turns out they're almost

works of art in themselves. As Graham Stewart's

been discovering. A slice of Macintosh's masterpiece.

Like peering into a dolls house, these incredibly detailed images

record every nook and cranny of the architect's defining work. They are

brutal and for the ongoing restoration of the building but it

turns out they are practically works of art in themselves. -- they are a

blueprint for. Every time I see these images, I get ridiculously

excited. They are stunningly beautiful and what is about it, and

the thing I am always asking, have you done anything in Photoshopped

with those? Because they are layered and they look like paintings. They

have these beautiful textures and it is really the result of the scans

and the layering of the scams. So in a way, does this almost give us a

new perspective on Macintosh? A completely new perspective. One of

the most exciting things for me and looking at these, some of the images

I have just seen for the first time today, is that there is always a

different view of the building. You see the building in ways you have

never seen it before, complete sections, cuts through the middle of

the building. We always knew how wide it was but you suddenly realise

how tall it was. You realise how many different volumes of space work

together. In ways that you could not possibly have seen before. The

three-day scanning has been done in-house by the School of art centre

for digital visualisation. Having already document iconic buildings

like the Sydney Opera house, they found the Mackintosh building no

less, Lex. So far, the data is comprised from 500 individual scans.

Almost 15 billion points of information. It is an incredibly,

kitted building, and maintaining an accurate survey throughout a

structure like this is quite a challenge. So it has been a

difficult project to undertake but the results are quite stunning. In a

way, it is one of the few positives to come from that awful fire of 2014

when a small canister of expanding foam started a blaze in the basement

of the building. The fire quickly spread upwards, engulfing the iconic

Macintosh library. The world's architectural community was

heartbroken. The library, regarded as one of the most important

interiors of the 20th century, lay in ruins. The sandstone pillars

holding up the roof of the library were scorched in the intense heat of

the fire. They are currently being stripped down and reconstructed. In

the meantime, this temporary structure is essentially holding

together this part of the building so the three-day visualisation is

for the moment are the only unobscured view is we have of this

iconic library. And those visualisation is now available for

all to see. The exhibition opens tomorrow in the article's read

building and runs until the end of the month.

Now, joining me to discuss the day's big stories are the political

commentator Paul Gilbride and journalist Dominic Hinde.

Good evening to you both. Let's start again and talk about Brexit.

A new report has warned that Scotland could lose between 30,000

and 80,000 jobs as a consequence of leaving the European Union.

The report from the Fraser of Allander Institute suggests

the relative impact on the rest of the UK could be even greater.

The issue dominated questions to the First Minister

My position is also to face up to the realities ahead of us, to

mitigate risks and take advantage of opportunities. And this Parliament

now faces a choice about whether to put the lines share of this effort

into examining practical solutions or simply complaining about the

results. Which is it to be, First Minister? Scotland finds itself in a

situation we did not ask to be in. We are in this situation facing all

the risks we face because of the recklessness of the Conservative

government in Westminster. My job and the job of this government is to

protect Scotland's interests and that is exactly what we will

continue to do. What did you make of that exchange today? Do you think

Ruth Davidson is finding herself in a difficult position, at odds with

the UK Conservative leader? Ultimately, she is but the thing

about with Davidson, she is a victim of her own success in a way. She has

definitely tried to put clear that water between the Scottish

Conservatives and the Tory Party down south. So inevitably there is

going to be tensions. The fact of the matter is she is now saying that

we are where we are an Brexit is going to happen, but we want to

remain within a single market, which makes perfect economic sense. But

the SNP will always try to exploit the differences between party

leaders appear and the wider UK parties down south. Looking at it

from Nicola Sturgeon's perspective, do you think she is going to just

have to continue her message that she is trying to forge a good deal

for Scotland, even though that might not be possible? I think when you

look at the SNP strategy, it is designed to fail and set a number of

tests that the Westminster government is not going to be able

to meet. When the vote happened, there was talk about Scotland being

part of the UK and being in the EU as well but that was never going to

happen. There is no legal precedent. It is very legally difficult. Nicola

Sturgeon knows what she's doing and she is asking questions that she

knows cannot be answered and that will be the trigger for another

referendum on independence or it will help engineer another

referendum for Scotland on a more general level. Immigration has been

a big issue this week, discussed that the Tory Party conference.

There was a lot of reaction to what was said yesterday. Absolutely on

the suggestion by Amber Rudd that there should be a list... There was

a famous sketch in Dad's Army when captain Mannering said, don't tell

them your name, Pike, and the German officer said, your name will also go

on the list. Immigration, as Theresa May said, there is no way that the

government is going to give up that message. Immigration was a key

message. People want controlled immigration in the UK and that is

non-negotiable as far as she is concerned. But the tone of the

language will be important. You see a big difference between the read --

between David Cameron and Theresa May on this. David Cameron said he

wanted immigration to win voters. Theresa May, having spoken to people

inside the government, it seems like she is a genuine believer and

believe strongly that immigration is too high in Britain. The problem is

that Nicola Sturgeon does not. There is no common ground between them.

And the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is in Glasgow tonight,

giving the Jimmy Reed Memorial lecture in Govan. He took the

opportunity to attack what he described as the xenophobia of the

Conservatives. We have to be careful with the language here at the

moment. Nicola used this word again today, xenophobic. If you are going

to portray Scots that voted to leave the EU as xenophobic, it is not the

best strategy for success. About one third of SNP voters do not believe

that Scotland should be in the EU. You have to separate between UK

Government policy on people who voted to leave the EU. That is two

very separate areas. Today we see children in primary schools having

their names collected, asking companies to collect the names of

foreign workers. The company knows which companies employ foreign

workers because they have the tax list. It is about weapon I think

that fear. And Jeremy Corbyn announced his Shadow Cabinet jobs

today. Diane Abbott has been made Shadow Home Secretary. No great

surprise, considering the long-standing relationship between

Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott. She was the Shadow Health Secretary and

he has taken this opportunity now that his hand has been strengthened

after the leadership election. He has shaped the Cabinet as much as he

can in his own image. And he has taken the opportunity to strengthen

his own support. He has brought in Nick Browne, Gordon Brown ally. Was

that a an attempt to bring in the right side of the party? I think he

believes is central enough that can have him on board. There is a logic

to having people that are not entirely sympathetic but are

prepared to cooperate to ensure a Labour victory. We see a Jeremy

Corbyn is try to shore himself up and is an idea of legitimacy, that

he has not had the chance to prove himself with his team yet. Now he

has a cabinet of people he has chosen without compromise and that

will allow him to perform or fail on his own terms. He has one obstacle

and that is Labour Party HQ, run by people who are opposed to them. If

he can crack that and achieved control, then we can see what he can

do. Another big political story in the papers today.

Ukip are in the headlines after leadership hopeful

Steven Woolfe was taken to hospital after a reported fight at a meeting

Nigel Farage is back as the party's interim leader until a fresh

election to find a successor to Diane James, who resigned two

All looking very chaotic. It does not look very professional at all. I

think what this actually shows, a lot of people have been thinking

what is the problem? Why is Diane James resigning after just 18 days?

We're trying to figure what is going on at the top of Ukip. It is not so

much political or policy differences, it is down to

personalities here. Do they have a place? Know that they have got what

they wanted, they have got Britain's exit from Europe... It will become

very difficult for them. When Britain leaves the EU, they will

lose their income stream and MEPs. Without a coherent platform, it will

be hard for them to find a place when the Conservative Party has

taken that hardline anti-immigration ground from them. Do you think Nigel

Farage will stay long or do you think he might not have any choice?

I don't think he has much choice but I think the man is tired. He said he

wants to stand down. He does not want to step back into the breaches

for too long. I think there will be a new leader before tomorrow. Thank

you very much for coming in. We will be back again on Monday. Until then,

bye-bye.