Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Amber Rudd Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 20B to Commons amendment 20 and with consequential Lords amendment 20C.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Commons amendments (a), (b), (d), (e) and (c) to Lords amendment 21B.

Government motion not to insist on Commons amendment 21 and Lords amendments 21B to 21D in lieu.

Government motion to agree to Lords amendment 33A to Commons amendment 33.

[Amber Rudd]

On Report in the Commons, I informed the House of our intention to strengthen the amendments we tabled in Committee by specifying that if the Committee on Climate Change advises us that onshore oil and gas might adversely impact on climate change objectives, the Secretary of State must either make regulations providing that the right of use for petroleum and deep geothermal exploitation will no longer be available for future projects, or report to Parliament on the reasons for not doing so. Amendment 20B and consequential amendment 20C seek to address that commitment. By introducing them, we are making it absolutely clear that shale development will remain compatible with our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The Government disagreed with Commons amendment 21 and proposed amendments 21B, 21C and 21D in lieu. There is a clear and pressing need to ensure that this legislation is absolutely right. As drafted, amendment 21 cannot be included in the Bill. Although the courts would attempt to interpret the provisions, it is not viable as law and simply would not work in practice. Our amendments are designed to support the growth of the shale industry, while reassuring local communities it will be done in a safe and responsible manner. They also ensure clarity for all interested parties by proposing clauses that can be interpreted and enforced effectively by the courts.

Regarding the scope of our amendments, they will apply to associated hydraulic fracturing for onshore oil and gas, as defined in the amendment. Geothermal operations will be excluded. Conventional oil and gas well stimulation techniques will also be excluded, which makes perfect sense as they have been used for decades onshore. The territorial extent of the amendments will be limited to England and Wales. To that end, I ask that this House agree with amendment 33A.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister clarify the position in relation to hydraulic fracturing in Wales? We read reports that this matter may well at some stage be devolved to Wales. Is that under consideration, and could it happen in the foreseeable future?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to clarify that. The Welsh Government, as he will know, already have substantial control of onshore oil and gas activities through planning controls and environmental regulation, as they are already devolved. As he will also be aware, the Secretary of State for Wales is leading discussions on further powers for Wales ahead of the St David’s day announcement. I understand that there is some merit in these decisions being devolved to the Welsh Assembly. However, this issue requires further consideration before a decision can be taken.

Turning to the specifics, we outlined on Monday in the other place that Government amendments 21B, 21C and 21D in lieu are designed to ensure associated hydraulic fracturing cannot occur unless a set of 13 conditions have been met. The Secretary of State will not grant consent for associated hydraulic fracturing unless that has been done. I would be very happy to speak about each condition if colleagues have specific questions, but I would like to focus on areas of concern raised during Monday’s debate and by amendments that have been tabled subsequently.

First, amendment (a) indicates a misunderstanding of our clauses, and specifically the way in which subsection (3) works. At the end of (3)(a) it very clearly says “and”, not “or”, so paragraph (3)(b) is not a get-out provision for the Secretary of State, but an additional safeguard to ensure that my Department refuses consent if there is something else wrong with the proposal. We should not change anything here.

Secondly, amendment (b) asks that the environmental impact assessment of the development be taken into account. I want to reassure the House that there is no difference between us on the outcome we are seeking to achieve; it is simply a question of how we deliver the requirement in law. The term “environmental information” is used in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. It captures the information that must be taken into account by the relevant planning authority before planning permission is granted, including, but not limited to, an environmental statement. This process is commonly referred to as an environmental impact assessment. The Secretary of State cannot give consent for associated hydraulic fracturing unless he is satisfied that the environmental impact of the development has been taken into account by the relevant planning authority. He can be satisfied that this has happened where he is given a notice by the local planning authority stating that the environmental information has been taken into account. As I have said, this is simply about delivering a provision that has a meaning in law. I hope that reassures the House.

Amendment (b) asks that we refer to fugitive emissions, rather than emissions of methane into the air in our clauses. The Environment Agency already requires operators to manage, monitor and report on fugitive emissions. It is unlikely it would require this for carbon dioxide emissions, which are likely to be negligible. The MacKay Stone report on potential greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas sites shows that on average, shale gas is approximately 86% methane and 3% carbon dioxide, as well as ethane, propane and nitrogen. Methane represents more than 99% of the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions—in other words, the global warming emissions—from fugitive shale gas. It therefore makes sense for the conditions related to associated hydraulic fracturing to focus on methane. The principal source of carbon dioxide emissions would be from combustion of gas in flaring. Such emissions from flaring are modelled and monitored as part of the permit conditions. I can also confirm that we are actively considering whether the drilling of bore holes for monitoring purposes should be classified as permitted development, and we hope to take this forward in the near future.

Amendment (b) also deals with individual notification of residents. It is just not feasible to require separate notifications for each individual resident regarding associated hydraulic fracturing. We live in a free country where individuals are not required to register where they live. It would be practically impossible for the Secretary of State to identify each individual resident and check whether they had been notified, so making individual notification a condition of issuing consent for associated hydraulic fracturing would leave every consent wide open to legal challenge by third parties. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to introduce a demand that would require every single resident to consent to associated hydraulic fracturing.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to respond in a minute.

Planning regulations currently require persons submitting planning applications for shale gas to serve notice on individual owners and tenants of land where surface works are required.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I am going to make some progress.

Persons submitting such planning applications must publish a notice in a local newspaper and put up site notices. We believe this is proportionate and fair to residents. In addition, the industry has agreed, as part of a voluntary package, to notify the public when exercising the right of use to access underground land. We have taken a reserve power in the Bill to enforce this if the notice scheme relating to the right of use is not honoured appropriately.

Amendment (c) stipulates that no hydraulic fracturing, as defined in the amendment, can take place until the regulations defining water source protection areas and other protected areas have been approved by Parliament. It is worth noting that, at the moment, no operator in the UK has well consent where hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is intended. I can confirm that the Government will not grant any consent for associated hydraulic fracturing operations until all the conditions are clearly defined.

Amendments (b), (d) and (e) insert wording into the clauses about associated hydraulic fracturing not taking place “within or under” protected areas. Amendment (b) also asks that we insert the environmental regulator’s definition of groundwater protection zones into the clauses. I would like to stress that we are talking here about how to define these things in law. It is absolutely crucial to get these legal definitions right. The Government amendment does not refer to “within or under” protected areas because the meaning of this term needs to be flexible to allow proper provisions to be made in secondary legislation.

There is a strong case that sites such as World Heritage sites and the Norfolk Broads should be protected from fracking taking place under them. In other cases, that would not be so sensible. For example, in the case of areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks, given their size and dispersion, it might not be practical to guarantee that fracking will not take place under them in all cases without unduly constraining the industry. However, that is something we need to consider in more detail, and we will do that in due course.

We will look at the evidence to ensure we get this right when setting out the details in secondary legislation. The regulations will be subject to the approval of both Houses, so now is not the time for this. Our clauses put a duty on the Secretary of State to lay draft regulations containing a definition of “protected areas” by 31 July 2015. We must not rush this now, because we would risk putting in place restrictions in areas in a way that does not achieve the intended aim of the condition, or that goes beyond it and needlessly damages the potential development of the shale industry.

We have been working tirelessly over the past week to come up with a set of clauses specific to the shale industry that, in keeping with the spirit of each of the points in amendment 21, will provide the public with confidence that it is being taken forward in a balanced way. Officials and Ministers have worked hard on this, and I would like to thank the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), for working so hard with us in Committee, together with our excellent cross-departmental team of officials.

I hope the points I have made address hon. Members’ concerns. Shale gas is an exciting new energy resource for the UK, with huge potential that we can deliver safely. Now is the time to seize, not squander, the opportunity to develop the United Kingdom’s shale industry.

[Tom Greatrex]

I note from the number of Members seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the amount of time left that even if I try to be brief, which I will, we will probably not have the opportunity to repair the damage that the Government have done to the amendment that was passed wholeheartedly by this House just a couple of weeks ago. The Minister should regret that. Given that she refused to take interventions on a number of specific points, I will put them to the House.

My understanding is that some of the changes the Government have made in introducing the amendment in the other place do not go as far as what was agreed by this House on 26 January—again, a matter to be regretted, particularly in view of some the commitments and comments that the Minister made in her sometimes rather chaotic contribution on that date. Once again, I think the House will come to regret that.

Last month, many in the Chamber were left with the impression that the Government had listened and accepted the case being made, which included issues concerning groundwater protection and areas of protection, as well as other detailed points. Although I accept that there has been value in clarifying some of the language in our amendment, I do not accept that every one of the changes made by the Government and the Minister protect the integrity of the amendment passed by this House. As I have said, that is to be regretted.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Amber Rudd Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1— Hydraulic fracturing—

‘(1) The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, Schedule 1, Part 2, Chapter 1, is amended as follows:

(2) After Section 1.2 insert—

“SECTION 1.3

Hydraulic Fracturing Activities

Part A(1)

(a) carrying out exploration or assessments prior to hydraulic fracturing;

(b) drilling wells for use in hydraulic fracturing;

(c) process of hydraulic fracturing;

(d) decommissioning and long-term maintenance of hydraulic fracturing wells.””

New clause 2—Shale gas extraction: devolution—

‘(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows:

(2) In Schedule 5, Part II, section D2, after “gas other than through pipes,”, insert—

“( ) The licensing of onshore shale gas extraction underlying Scotland.

( ) Responsibility for mineral access rights for onshore extraction of shale gas in Scotland.””

New clause 4— Committee on Climate Change shale gas reports—

It shall be a duty of the Committee on Climate Change to produce Reports into the effects of exploitation of shale gas in the UK on net carbon emissions from the UK.”

New clause 6—Hydraulic Fracturing exclusion zones—

‘(1) The Petroleum Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In Section 3, after subsection (4), insert—

“(5) No licences shall be granted to search and bore for petroleum in protected areas using the process of hydraulic fracturing.

(6) For the purposes of this section, “protected area” means—

(a) special areas of conservation under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994,

(b) special protection areas under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,

(c) sites of special scientific interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,

(d) national parks under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949,

(e) The Broads under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988, and

(f) areas of outstanding natural beauty under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”

New clause 7—Environmental Impact Assessment: publication—

“(1) Any Environmental Statement undertaken in respect of the possible exploitation of petroleum or deep geothermal energy, under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, must be publicised before a planning application is submitted to the local planning authority and/or the Secretary of State.

(2) The publication of an Environmental Statement under subsection (1) must be in accordance with the procedures set out in Article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.”

New clause 8— Impact on rural communities—

“The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs must, within one month of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before the House of Commons the full report on Shale Gas Rural Economy Impacts.”

New clause 9— Moratorium on onshore unconventional petroleum—

“(1) All use of land for development consisting of the exploitation of unconventional petroleum in Great Britain shall be discontinued during the relevant period.

(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that an independent assessment is undertaken of the exploitation of unconventional petroleum in Great Britain including the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing.

(3) The assessment must take account of the impacts of the exploitation of the unconventional petroleum on—

(a) climate change;

(b) the environment;

(c) health and safety; and

(d) the economy.

(4) The Secretary of State must—

(a) consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and

(b) publish the assessment

within the relevant period.

(5) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (4)—

“relevant period” means a period of not less than 18 months and not more than 30 months commencing on the date two months after Royal Assent;

“unconventional petroleum” means petroleum which does not flow readily to the wellbore.

(6) In section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998, at the end of subsection (4) add “and subsection (4A).

“(4A) Nothing in this section permits the grant of a licence to search and bore for and get unconventional petroleum in Great Britain during the relevant period.

(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A) “relevant period” and “unconventional petroleum” have the meaning specified in section [Moratorium on onshore unconventional petroleum] of the Infrastructure Act 2015.”

New clause 10— The security of supply of gas—

(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with section 4AA of the Gas Act 1986 and so far as it appears to him practicable from time to time, keep under review whether further measures may be appropriate in order to protect the interests of existing and future consumers in relation to the security of the supply of gas to them.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State may direct the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to conduct a Significant Code Review in relation to whether modifications to licences granted under Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 or to the Uniform Network Code are appropriate in order to underpin the demand for and the security of supply of gas.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

“consumers”, for the avoidance of doubt, includes domestic and non-domestic consumers;

“Significant Code Review” has the meaning given in Standard Special Condition A11 (24) of licences granted under section 7 of the Gas Act 1986;

“Uniform Network Code” means the document of that title required to be prepared pursuant to Standard Special Condition A11 of licences granted under section 7 of the Gas Act 1986.

New clause 11— Annual report by Secretary of State on security of energy supplies—

“(1) Section 172 of the Energy Act 2004 (annual report on security of energy supplies) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), at the end insert—

“(e) the security of supply of gas to consumers in Great Britain, including available storage capacity, and any appropriate remedial measures.””

New clause 19— Hydraulic fracturing: necessary conditions—

Any hydraulic fracturing activity can not take place:

(a) unless an environmental impact assessment has been carried out;

(b) unless independent inspections are carried out of the integrity of wells used;

(c) unless monitoring has been undertaken on the site over the previous 12 month period;

(d) unless site-by-site measurement, monitoring and public disclosure of existing and future fugitive emissions is carried out;

(e) in land which is located within the boundary of a groundwater source protection zone;

(f) within or under protected areas;

(g) in deep-level land at depths of less than 1,000 metres;

(h) unless planning authorities have considered the cumulative impact of hydraulic fracturing activities in the local area;

(i) unless a provision is made for community benefit schemes to be provided by companies engaged in the extraction of gas and oil rock;

(j) unless residents in the affected area are notified on an individual basis;

(k) unless substances used are subject to approval by the Environment Agency

(l) unless land is left in a condition required by the planning authority, and

(m) unless water companies are consulted by the planning authority.”

The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that shale gas exploration and extraction can only proceed with appropriate regulation and comprehensive monitoring and to ensure that any activity is consistent with climate change obligations and local environmental considerations.

Amendment 50, page 39, line 12 leave out clause 37.

This deletes the Clause that puts into primary legislation a new duty to maximise the economic recovery of UK oil and gas.

Amendment 68, in clause 37, page 39, line 17, leave out

“the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum, in particular through”

and insert

“not the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum but ensuring that fossil fuel emissions are limited to the carbon budgets advised by the Committee on Climate Change and introducing a moratorium on the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas deposits in order to reduce the risk of carbon budgets being breached, in particular through—”.

This reflects the conclusions from an inquiry into the Environmental risks of fracking by the Environmental Audit Committee, whose report is published on 26 January (Eighth Report, HC 856).

Amendment 73, page 39, line 31, at end insert—

“(3A) A strategy must be compatible with the Climate Change Act 2008.”

This would require strategies drawn up under clause 37 on maximising the economic recovery of oil and gas to be compatible with the Climate Change Act 2008, thereby avoiding the risk that the Secretary of State could, as a result of clause 37, be required to fulfil conflicting duties.

Amendment 51, page 45, line 22 leave out clauses 39 to 44.

This deletes the Clauses that seek to change the trespass law and introduce a new right to use deep-level land, which would allow fracking companies to drill beneath people’s homes and land without their permission and to leave any substance or infrastructure in the land.

Amendment 44, in clause 39, page 45, line 25, leave out

“petroleum or deep geothermal energy”

and insert—

“(a) petroleum; or

(b) deep geothermal energy.

“(1A) The right under (1)(a) only applies if the Committee on Climate Change’s most recent report under section (Committee on Climate Change Shale Gas Reports) concludes that shale gas exploitation leads to a net reduction of UK carbon emissions.

(1B) The carrying out of hydraulic fracturing in connection with the exploitation of unconventional petroleum is not allowed unless the Committee on Climate Change’s most recent report under section (Committee on Climate Change Shale Shale Gas Reports) concludes that shale gas exploitation leads to a net reduction of UK carbon emissions.”

Amendment 47, page 45, line 27, leave out from “if” to end of line 29 and insert—

“(a) it is deep-level land,

(b) it is within a landward area, and

(c) the well shaft is not within two kilometres of any village or town.”

Amendment 56, page 45, line 29, at end insert—

“(c) subject to the agreement of the owner of any land altered by the use.”

Amendment 83, page 45, line 29, at end insert—

“(c) outside:

(i) Special Areas of Conservation under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994,

(ii) Special Protection Ares under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,

(iii) Sites of Special Scientific Interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,

(iv) National Parks under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949,

(v) The Broads under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988, and

(vi) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty under section 82 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”

Amendment 117, page 45, line 29, at end add—

“(c) subject to the prior collation of existing environmental data and that data is published in a form that enables it to be subject to scientific peer review.”

Amendment 57, page 45, line 32, at end insert—

(a) The right of use shall be subject to the precautionary principle being applied;

(b) The Environment Agency will determine whether the condition under paragraph (a) has been met; and

(c) In this section, “precautionary principle” shall mean that no land is used for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep geothermal energy unless it is proved that it is not harmful to the environment.”

Amendment 3, page 45, line 33, leave out “300 metres” and insert “1,000 metres”.

Amendment 65, page 45, line 33, leave out “300 metres” and insert “950 metres”.

Government amendment 86.

Amendment 2, page 45, line 36, at end insert—

“(6) The Secretary of State shall, before the award of licences in relation to the use of deep-level land for onshore oil and gas exploration, issue additional planning guidance introducing a presumption against such developments within or under protected areas.”

Amendment 48, page 45, line 36, at end insert—

“(6) The Secretary of State shall prevent the exploitation of shale oil or gas if either a water company or the Environment Agency credibly asserts that to do otherwise would—

(a) create substantial risks to public health due to potential contamination of groundwaters from the extraction process; or

(b) create substantial risks to nearby surface waters due to potential contamination from flowback and waste water arising from hydraulic fracturing activity; or

(c) create substantial risks to the nearby environment due to potential contamination from flowback and waste water arising from hydraulic fracturing activity.”

Amendment 49, page 45, line 36, at end insert—

“(5A) The use of hydraulic fracturing in connection with the exploitation of unconventional petroleum shall be prohibited.

(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A), “unconventional petroleum” means petroleum which does not flow readily to the wellbore.

(5C) In section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998, at the end of subsection (4) add “and subsection (4A).

“(4A) Nothing in this section permits the grant of a licence to search and bore for and get unconventional petroleum in Great Britain.

(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A), “unconventional petroleum” has the meaning set out in section 38(5B) of the Infrastructure Act [2015].””

This amendment would ban fracking (the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and gas) in the UK.

Amendment 66, page 45, line 36, at end insert—

“(6) This section shall not extend to Wales unless an order authorising it has been passed by the National Assembly for Wales.

(7) An order under subsection (6) may contain any conditions which the Assembly deems appropriate.”

Amendment 82, page 45, line 36, at end insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State shall be required to commission and consider reports on—

(a) The cumulative impacts of water use in hydraulic fracking of exploratory and productive gas wells;

(b) The cumulative impacts of flowback and waste water arising from hydraulic fracking activity; and

(c) The cumulative impacts on communities of road and vehicle movements from hydraulic fracking activity

Before providing any permissions for exploitation of petroleum on deep level land where one or more exploitation facility exists within one mile of a proposed site.”

Amendment 60, in clause 40, page 46, line 6, at end insert—

“(f) any substance used for the purposes of paragraph (d) must be—

(i) approved by the Environment Agency; and

(ii) publicly declared by the operator.”

Amendment 1, page 46, line 17, at end insert—

“(3A) Before a well design is commenced or adopted in connection with the exploitation of petroleum, the right of use requires the Health and Safety Executive to inspect the well so as to satisfy itself that—

(a) so far as is reasonably practicable, there can be no unplanned escape of fluids from the well; and

(b) risks to the health and safety of persons from it or anything in it, or in strata to which it is connected, are as low as is reasonably practicable.

(3B) Where the Health and Safety Executive is satisfied that a condition in subsection (3A) is met, it shall give notice to the Secretary of State.

(3C) The Secretary of State shall publish the information received from the Health and Safety Executive in accordance with subsection (3A).”

Amendment 59, page 46, line 17, at end insert—

“(3A) The right of use shall be conditional on operators ensuring the—

(a) safe conveyance of wastewater from the site to a safe place of storage;

(b) effective treatment and disposal of wastewater from the site; and

(c) publication of the details of the treatment and disposal of wastewater under sub-paragraph (ii).”

Government amendment 87.

Amendment 78, in clause 41, page 46, line 41, leave out “may” and insert “shall”.

Amendment 79, page 46, line 44, leave out “may” and insert “shall”.

Amendment 61, page 47, line 2, at end insert—

“(c) to compulsorily purchase properties in the event of blight from the activities of the extraction and exploitation of petroleum and geothermal energy in deep-level land.”

Amendment 80, page 47, line 4, after “the”, insert “minimum”.

Amendment 81, page 47, line 5, after “payments”, insert

“which shall be calculated as a percentage of the gross value of the gas extracted”.

Amendment 62, in clause 42, page 47, line 19, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert

“to persons of specified descriptions”

Amendment 63, page 47, line 22, leave out “within the area” and insert

“on the Parish Council noticeboard”.

Amendment 64, page 47, line 24, at end insert—

“(2B) Failure to display or publish notice under the terms of subsection (2) will negate any right to exploit or extract petroleum or geothermal energy.”

Government amendments 88, 89, 90, 96, 97, 98, 99 and 103.

Amendment 69, title, line 10 leave out

“to make provision about maximising economic recovery of petroleum in the United Kingdom;”

This reflects the conclusions from an inquiry into the Environmental risks of fracking by the Environmental Audit Committee, whose report is published on 26 January (Eighth Report, HC 856).

[Amber Rudd]

I rise to speak to new clause 15 and amendments 98 and 103. Both shale gas and geothermal energy are exciting new energy resources for the UK, with the potential to provide greater energy security, growth and jobs, while also playing an important role in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I will make some progress, but I will give way to the hon. Lady during my speech. The provisions in the Bill provide for a right to use deep-level land for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep geothermal energy. That will help us unlock exploration for shale gas and deep geothermal as we move towards a low-carbon economy.

Several hon. Members have brought forward new clause 4, which would place a statutory duty on the Committee on Climate Change to produce reports on the effect of shale on the UK’s net carbon emissions. Amendment 44 states that the right of use, and the carrying out of hydraulic fracturing, are conditional on the finding in the Committee’s reports

“that shale…exploitation leads to a net reduction of UK carbon emissions.”

The Government are committed to reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. To meet our challenging climate targets we will need significant quantities of renewables, nuclear and gas in our energy mix, and we are committed to listening to the experts and their advice on how to reach those targets.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister explain how public confidence in fracking is enhanced by the Government’s refusal to let the public see an unredacted copy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report on the impacts of fracking on the rural economy? Will she make a gesture today by saying that that report will be unredacted and put in the public domain?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady will know that this matter is included in one of the amendments, which I will come on to discuss more fully later. Although I cannot make the commitment she is asking for, I will speak more fully on it a little later.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Three times now the Minister has referred to moving to lower carbon emissions in the UK, but what good is that if it results in displaced coal being available for use in other parts of the developed world? Whether the emissions come from coal being burnt in Germany or in the UK, they still contribute to climate change.

[Amber Rudd]

That is why, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government have been so keen to get targets into Europe that apply across the whole of Europe. He will be aware that we are leading on those, and we will continue to do so. It is very important to lead by example, and he is right to raise the issue relating to Germany, which is why we are pleased to have a cross-European agreement. However, that does not detract from the importance of making sure that we do the right thing in this country.

[Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

On that point about displaced coal, is it not a fact that it is displaced coal from north America that is contributing to a rise in the burning of coal in Europe? If we take matters into our own hands and develop more gas, we can reduce the amount of coal that is burned. It is coal that is the enemy of climate change and that is enemy No. 1. Gas is our ally in a green future.

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point based on his clear expertise in this area. The Committee on Climate Change has said that for flexible power supply, the UK will

“continue to use considerable, albeit declining, amounts of gas well into the 2030s”

which will leave

“a considerable gap between production of North Sea gas and our total demand.”

It argues that that demand

“can either be met through imports or UK production of shale gas.”

It concludes that

“if anything, using well regulated UK shale gas to fill this gap could lead to lower overall lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than continuing to import LNG. It would also increase the proportion of energy produced within the UK, improving our energy sovereignty.”

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

The important thing that has come from these exchanges is that it is the use of carbon that causes the emissions. Therefore, it is crucial that we have a proper emissions trading scheme throughout Europe and that the source of the energy should be as low carbon as possible. Therefore, maximising the economic production from the North sea is an important first step.

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. It is absolutely essential that we do also maximise economic recovery, and we will be coming on to that later in this debate.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Minister rightly said that the displacement of coal by gas could make a massive impact on reducing our carbon emissions. But it is also right to say that that is no good if countries such as Germany go down the coal route. Does she think she can persuade those countries to follow us in going towards gas more quickly?

[Amber Rudd]

We will certainly do our best. The UK is a leader in Europe in providing our own example and in trying to corral our European partners to ensure that we move to a low carbon economy.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

I will make a little more progress.

Professor David MacKay and Dr Timothy Stone have supported the findings of the Committee on Climate Change and in 2013, they published recommendations on how to reduce emissions from shale gas operations, which the Government have accepted. In addition, the Environment Agency has agreed to make green completions—techniques to minimise methane emissions —a requirement of environmental permits for shale gas production.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but first I want to outline what the Government are doing on this matter.

I am pleased to say that we have tabled an amendment that will place a duty on the Secretary of State to seek advice from the Committee on Climate Change as to the impact of petroleum development in England and Wales, including shale gas operations, on our ability to meet the UK’s overall climate change objectives over time, and it is not limited to a specific carbon budget period. The Secretary of State must consider the advice of the Committee on Climate Change and report on his conclusions at least every five years. By introducing this amendment, we are making it absolutely clear that shale development will remain compatible with our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for that amendment. It goes halfway towards my amendment, which called for that to happen and then said that we should not allow fracking if it increased emissions. She spoke about the report from Dave Mackay, one of my constituents. Does she accept that he also says that

“in the absence of strong climate policies…we believe it is credible that shale-gas use would increase both short-term and long-term emissions rates?”

If it turns out that we do see higher carbon emissions, will she agree that we should end fracking at that point at least?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am confident that our amendment addresses exactly that. The Committee on Climate Change will take a view on what it sees, now that there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult with it. I am encouraged by the fact that that obligation is now in place.

[Sir William Cash]

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), is the Minister aware that, historically, the German nation has been providing massive subsidies—up to £4 billion a year—to its coal industry? She could do something in the Council of Europe about solving the problem that she has been describing. Will she do that?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his expression of confidence in our ability to work with our European partners to improve output in the UK and in Europe more widely.

[Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that David MacKay, to whom the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) referred, also reported that carbon emissions from shale gas are lower than those from liquefied natural gas, and that because the most likely effect of developing our shale gas reserves will be to substitute for LNG imports, the direct and immediate effect of allowing shale gas to go ahead will be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a win-win for the UK in both potential economic benefit and reducing our carbon footprint.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

In addition to all the advantages my hon. Friend has already mentioned, does she accept that we need to have a shale gas industry to go hand-in-hand with our wind industry, because wind-powered generators require gas generators to back them up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is right: having a successful shale gas industry is an important part of supporting our renewables industry.

New clause 2 proposes specific changes to the Scotland Act 1998. Although I understand the intention, the Bill is not the right vehicle to make those amendments. The new devolution settlement should be debated as a whole package in the next Parliament. Last Thursday, the Government published their Command Paper, “Scotland in the United Kingdom: An enduring settlement”, which sets out that draft clause 31 will devolve to Scottish Ministers the regime for licensing exploration and extraction of oil and gas, and transfer to the Scottish Parliament legislative competence for the licensing of onshore oil and gas exploration and extraction. Responsibility for mineral access rights for underground onshore extraction of oil and gas in Scotland will also be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

I assure hon. Members that those matters will be fully addressed through the broader process of reviewing the devolution settlement, to which all three major parties are committed. Whoever forms the next Government will take forward the draft legislation for further Scottish devolution. I announced in Committee the Government’s intention to table an amendment to remove Scotland from the scope of the provisions concerning the right to use deep-level land. We have now tabled amendments that will achieve that.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I note what the Minister says, and obviously I am keen that the powers be transferred as soon as possible, but does she not acknowledge that, as I and the Scottish Government have said on numerous occasions, there is a gap? Scotland has planning and environmental powers, but will not, if the Government do as she is saying they will, get powers on licences for some time yet. Will the Government give a guarantee that no more licences will be granted in the meantime? What is the position of licences already granted? Would it not be more sensible to support new clause 9, so that there is a moratorium until the Scottish Parliament can make a full decision on these matters?

[Amber Rudd]

I feel that the Government new clause deals with the specific issues that are relevant to the Infrastructure Bill. I understand—we all do—that many other measures may need to be debated, but the time for that will be after the next Government are in place, when there will be a fuller debate on proper devolution.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The Minister said that onshore energy and fuels will be devolved, but when will offshore be devolved to the Scottish Government—Scotland’s oil?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, but I must defer to other Departments on that. For now, I will deal with the specific issues on the table for the Infrastructure Bill.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is talking about new clause 2 and the devolution of licensing, which she says is promised and will be delivered as part of the Smith agreement. Given that the 14th round has been started but the licences not awarded, does it not make sense for those licences not to be awarded in Scotland until devolution has happened?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point—one that was not raised in Committee, although we did debate this fairly fully. I take the view that the Bill is not the place to do that, but it could be considered after the next general election.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The Minister has outlined a road map for further powers for Scotland in regard to licensing powers. What consideration have the UK Government given to giving similar powers to the Welsh Government?

[Amber Rudd]

The Secretary of State for Wales has announced that a set of commitments agreed by the four main political parties in Wales on the way forward for Welsh devolution will be in place by 1 March. These commitments will form a baseline for devolution after the election. I understand that a strong case is being made for devolution of those powers.

That covers the hon. Gentleman’s amendment 66, which seeks to render the application of the clauses to the approval of the National Assembly for Wales. In addition, the current Government of Wales Act 2006 clearly sets out that oil and gas are excluded from the list of devolved subjects, and the exploitation of deep geothermal resources cannot be considered to have been conferred under any of the subjects in schedule 7. We see no grounds on which this measure would currently be within the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly. That is the situation for now. Scotland and Wales will continue to have substantial control of onshore oil and gas, and geothermal activities through their own existing planning procedures and environmental regulation, as these are already devolved. I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

New clause 6 and amendments 2 and 83 suggest that the national planning policy framework leaves gaps in respect of protected land, but this is not the case. Strong protections already exist for these areas and further protections are not necessary. A blanket ban, as proposed, would be disproportionate.

[Dr Huppert]

Is the Minister saying—she should be very clear on this—that there is absolutely no prospect of any fracking happening on any of this list of properties, and that anybody reading this debate should be clear that the Government have no intention of allowing that? Is that what she is saying?

[Amber Rudd]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me comment on that aspect in my own words, I hope that will reassure him.

The existing legislative framework provides a robust framework of protection for those sensitive areas. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 require a developer to undertake a habitats regulation assessment whenever a proposed project is likely to have a significant impact on a special conservation area or a special protection area. These protections derive from European law and set a very high bar. The regulations are supported by the national planning policy framework, which recognises areas that should be given a high level of protection, even if the development is outside the site boundary. These include special areas of conservation, special protection areas, sites of special scientific interest and Ramsar sites.

Planning guidance published last July set out the specific approach to planning for unconventional hydrocarbons in national parks, the broads, areas of outstanding natural beauty and world heritage sites. The guidance makes it clear that planning authorities should refuse planning applications for major development in these areas unless it can be demonstrated both that exceptional circumstances exist and that it is in the public interest.

[Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD)]

Does the Minister accept that 18% of the UK’s sites of special scientific interest, 13% of the special areas of conservation and 14% of the special protection areas are covered by the 14th licensing round?

[Amber Rudd]

Let me add to my earlier comments that we have agreed an outright ban on fracking in national parks, sites of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I hope that will reassure the right hon. Gentleman about the liability potential for any of the areas that I know he is particularly keen to protect.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I know that my hon. Friend will shortly respond to some of the amendments tabled in my name, but will she complete the sentence? Is she saying that there will be an outright ban on any fracking in national parks? Have the Government removed the words “except in exceptional circumstances”?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is right. That is exactly what we have done. We have now put in place an outright ban and will effectively remove those words.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Can the Minister clarify the situation in respect of ancient woodland? Will she also clarify the situation in respect of decisions by local planning authorities and whether, despite what she has just said, it will be possible for the Secretary of State to overturn those decisions?

[Amber Rudd]

That is something that I will have to look into. For the moment, I will make progress and hope to come back to the hon. Lady on that point this afternoon.

[Tom Greatrex]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you assist the House? The Minister seems to have suggested that an amendment is being made to the amendments before us. If that is the case, and what she has said about words being removed from the Bill is correct, will we have an opportunity to scrutinise that amendment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Amber Rudd]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will take the point of order from the hon. Lady and then the Minister can either respond to that or continue her speech.

[Mr Speaker]

Of course Members must listen to what the Minister has to say, but, for the avoidance of doubt, Members will be voting on that which is on the amendment paper. I do not mean this in any sense discourteously, but it is not for the Chair to seek to interpret amendments or new clauses, and I would not presume to do so. Each right hon. or hon. Member must make his or her own assessment of the merits or demerits, and implications, of new clauses and amendments and vote accordingly. We are voting only on what is on the amendment paper, not on that which is not on it. I call the Minister.

[Amber Rudd]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I will address new clause 7 on environmental impact assessments—EIAs—and new clause 19 and its various themes in turn. The Government share the desire expressed in new clause 7 and new clause 19(a) to ensure that the public are made fully aware of issues raised in EIAs before a planning application is submitted, and I can assure Members that this is the case. The comprehensive requirements for planning applications for which there is an environmental statement are already set out in article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, which requires that the environmental statement be publicised before a local planning authority can determine an application. Planning authorities are already required to ensure that mineral developments will not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the environment. Where a development is likely to have a significant effect, an EIA is required. If any significant environmental effects are identified that cannot be mitigated, planning permission can be refused.

This approach works well in practice and is consistent with our European obligations. It ensures that an EIA, which involves substantial work often taking up to a year to develop, is undertaken only where it adds value. However, the Government understand the need to build public confidence in the shale sector. We therefore welcome the reassurance provided by the industry’s public commitment to carry out EIAs for all exploration wells that involve hydraulic fracturing. The industry has made a further commitment to produce an annual report listing the shale sites that have produced an EIA.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I am going to make some progress. I will give way again before the end of my comments, but I am conscious that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) might want to address some of the points that I have raised.

New clause 19(b) and amendment 1 are concerned with the inspection of wells. The Health and Safety Executive is the independent regulator. Its specialist inspectors assess operators’ well notifications and weekly operations reports throughout well construction. Final consent for drilling operations rests with the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which will check that the relevant environmental agencies and the HSE have no objections before giving consent.

Health and safety legislation in the UK requires all well activities to be reviewed by an independent well examiner. There is an important principle that it is the well operator who retains responsibility for preventing any unplanned release of fluids. It is right that that fundamental duty rests with those who create the risk. The proposal that the HSE should approve each well could remove that responsibility. Rather than give a one-off approval, as is suggested in amendment 1, the HSE currently takes a lifecycle approach and can intervene at any time.

[Helen Jones]

Earlier, the Minister seemed to ask the House to rely on an order and on a commitment by the industry, rather than on putting the matter into primary legislation. If she agrees with what is in new clause 6, what is her objection to having it in the Bill?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. There is a lot that can be considered in primary legislation, but there is also a place for secondary legislation. We have decided that what is in primary legislation is sufficient.

I reassure Members that each shale site will still be inspected by the Health and Safety Executive during the exploration phase. I have agreed with the HSE that it will publish information for each visit to a shale site in its assessments.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

I asked this on Second Reading and I ask it again today. Will those inspections be unannounced and rigorous, and will there be full transparency on what HSE inspectors find?

[Amber Rudd]

The short answer to that is yes. The purpose of HSE inspections is to ensure that there is safety and clarity. I believe that my hon. Friend will be reassured about that when he takes a closer look.

On new clause 19(c) and (d) and amendment 117, I reassure Members that we support the use of baseline monitoring. At issue is the appropriateness of the monitoring period and the requirements involved. The Environment Agency has the power to require baseline monitoring under the conditions that are set in the environmental permit. The operator reports that information to the Environment Agency, which places it on the public register.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

I will make progress, but I assure hon. Members that I will let them intervene before I finish.

The environmental regulator adopts a risk-based approach to its assessment that is endorsed by the Royal Society. In addition, as was announced in Committee, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will direct the Environment Agency to require operators to undertake at least three months’ baseline monitoring of methane in groundwater before hydraulic fracturing can commence.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I want to take the Minister back to what she said about the use of secondary legislation. She will know, having been a Member of the House for a number of years, that secondary legislation is dealt with in a Committee that lasts a maximum of merely 90 minutes. We need to enshrine the environmental safeguards in primary legislation. Why is she so obsessed with not doing that?

[Amber Rudd]

I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not have time to listen to the Committee, where we spent many, many hours debating this subject and many different subjects. That gave everyone a great opportunity to raise all the issues. There is no suggestion that there has not been enough time to address this matter.

[Andrew Gwynne]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you please rule on the Minister’s view, because she seems to be confusing the Bill Committee with an Order in Council committee, which lasts a mere 90 minutes?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that that is a matter for the Chair. Members must make their own assessment. The hon. Gentleman has made his assessment. For all I know, he might beetle around the Chamber to share it with others, but people will form their own assessment. Let us hear the Minister’s oration.

[Amber Rudd]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Speaker.

On the announcement I made in Committee, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will direct the Environment Agency to require operators to undertake the three months’ baseline monitoring. That is a minimum of three months so, in practice, the Environment Agency may require a longer period of monitoring where appropriate.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Earlier in the Minister’s speech, she mentioned that she would use the Health and Safety Executive. There have been cuts to its budget and numbers. It is reduced to doing just the occasional health and safety spot-check. How can that organisation be competent to monitor the provisions in the Bill?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is essential that the HSE can do its job well. We have had conversations with it and there is no suggestion that it cannot do its job well, but we will keep that under review.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

In the Minister’s assessment prior to coming to the House, did she look at whether the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive need additional staff? If not, will she do so before she pushes the Bill further? We do not know what it costs to do that job properly.

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is essential that the Environment Agency and Health and Safety Executive have sufficient staff. They have not raised that with me and have accepted the fact that they will have the responsibility, but we will keep conversations with them open to ensure they can do their job correctly.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I am going to make progress.

On fugitive emissions, I have spoken about the report produced by Professor David MacKay and Dr Timothy Stone. Their report determined that, with the right safeguards in place, the net effect on greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas production will be relatively small. We report fugitive emissions from onshore energy extraction annually as part of our international reporting obligations on the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. That is done in accordance with guidelines produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is audited annually by a group of international experts.

[Andrew Miller]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

All sorts of things are helpful and all sorts of things are unhelpful, but they usually have one thing in common: that none of them is a point of order.

[Amber Rudd]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is right and asks an interesting question. I reassure him that I have written to him and other members of the Committee about that point.

[Andrew Miller]

Where is the letter?

[Amber Rudd]

It was sent to every member of the Committee.

With regard to industry reporting commitments, fugitive emissions levels will be constantly monitored at all stages of development. The data will be made available in line with best practice and regulatory reporting requirements. However, to provide additional reassurance, I am pleased to announce that the Government will direct the Environment Agency to require operators to monitor and report fugitive methane emissions. In addition, the industry has confirmed its commitment to site-by-site reporting of fugitive emissions.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

I am going to make substantial progress. I am concerned that other hon. Members will not be able to speak.

New clause 19(g), and amendments 3 and 65, are on depth limits. A company looking to develop shale or deep geothermal will need to obtain all the necessary permissions before it can proceed. The process of obtaining those permissions rather than the level at which we set the depth level will provide the relevant safeguards. There is no question of changing the existing regime governing access to land at surface down to depths of 300 metres.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

How can the Minister assure us about fugitive emissions and the safety of fracking when she proposes to give untrammelled access at 300 metres to developers, as she has just mentioned? Fracking lines travel far higher than 300 metres and cannot be detected in advance by the Environment Agency or others undertaking baseline monitoring.

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman raised that in Committee. We share his concern about safety and care for the community, but the Government believe that the Environment Agency is able to address that, and that we can rely on it to do so. In my conversations with the agency, it has given us that assurance, and it is the expertise that we have in particular in the UK that is so useful.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I wish to make some progress.

A company looking to develop shale or deep geothermal will need to obtain all the necessary permissions before it can proceed. It is the process of obtaining all those permissions, rather than the level at which the depth limit is set, that will provide the relevant safeguards—

[John Mann]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I will not: I am going to make some progress.

There is no question of changing the existing regime governing access to land at the surface and down to the depths of 300 metres. Extending the depth limit would not improve landowners’ enjoyment of their land or achieve any increase in the level of protection.

On new clause 19(i) and amendments 78, 79, 80 and 81, the Government have been clear that communities hosting shale gas developments should share in the benefits that are created. The shale industry is at a nascent stage. We will need more exploration to go ahead before knowing exactly how communities will benefit. At this stage, we need to ensure that schemes are flexible. A voluntary scheme offers a multitude of benefits to communities when compared with a statutory system, enabling schemes to be tailored to communities’ needs. Any statutory scheme might not be suitable for every situation, and would be more difficult in future.

The industry, represented by UK Onshore Oil and Gas—UKOOG—has already committed to the community benefits charter, which will provide significant benefits to affected communities. Industry will pay £100,000 per hydraulically fractured well site at exploratory stage to communities, and 1% of revenue if it successfully goes into production.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

Does the Minister yet have a definition of “community” in this instance?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend has raised that issue before and I hope that we will hear from him later. As he will be aware, we believe that that question is best decided later, when we have a charter in place that will address the issue.

[Andrew Miller]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the Minister’s speech, she referred to a letter that she claims to have sent to the members of the Committee. I have checked my file—everything was sent electronically—and no such letter arrived in my office. I would be grateful if a copy of the letter could be made available to Members now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has clarified what he believes to be the position. The Minister may or may not wish to comment.

[Amber Rudd]

The letter came from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and with that information the hon. Gentleman may be able to find it. I am happy to send him another copy.

The industry will need to show how it has complied with the charter on an annual basis, and any failure to follow through will ultimately result in a loss of membership and the benefits attached. In addition, operators will contribute a voluntary one-off payment of £20,000 for the right to use deep-level land. Each year, operators will need to publish evidence detailing how these commitments are being met. The Department of Energy and Climate Change will regularly monitor this evidence. Let me reassure the House that the proposals in the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to set up a statutory payment mechanism, if not satisfied.

On new clause 19(j) and amendments 62, 63 and 64, notice and publicity requirements relating to the planning and environmental permitting processes are already in place. We believe the system works well, but we recognise the concerns that have been raised by the new clause.

New clause 19(k) and amendment 60 are on the approval of substances to be left in the land. As part of the application for environmental permits, the EA will require full disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and has the power to restrict or prohibit the use of any substances where they would pose an environmental risk. Our regulations ensure that information on chemical substances and their maximum concentrations is included within the environmental permit, along with information on the total daily discharge of hydraulic fracturing fluid into the ground and the fluid taken off-site for disposal. The permit is placed on the public register.

I have already announced that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will direct the Environment Agency to publish information about chemicals it requires operators to disclose.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister indicate why she is not taking the opportunity to regulate and impose environmental requirements on other non-conventional gas extraction processes, such as underground coal gasification?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I hope he will find that it will be dealt with later on, but if it is not I will certainly write to him on that point.

New clause 19(m) relates to water companies. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that water companies are engaged fully in shale gas development. The existing regulatory framework ensures issues relating to water are addressed robustly. The water industry and shale operators have already agreed a memorandum of understanding to engage early, and share plans for water demand and waste water management. The Government have considered this issue carefully and want to provide further reassurance to the public. Therefore, we are consulting on whether to make water companies statutory consultees in respect of these applications. Subject to the response to the consultation, which closes at the end of this month, we would seek to bring forward any necessary secondary legislation.

New clause 19 has raised some very interesting and critical points in relation to reassuring the public. It is the Government’s view that we will accept new clause 19, but we plan to amend it in the other place to replace provision (g) on depth, with a review to put back the depth at the appropriate level for proper development.

On amendment 61, regarding compulsory purchase of properties in the event of blight, I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) that the regulatory regimes for planning, environmental permitting and health and safety already provide a very robust framework that ensures residential amenity is properly protected from any unacceptable effects of development. The protection of amenity is recognised in the core planning principles of the national planning policy framework. In the unlikely event that operations caused any damage, there are various options available. The landowner may be able to bring claims in tort, such as negligence and nuisance, against any operator. I trust my explanation of this issue reassures hon. Members, and that they will withdraw the related amendment.

On new clause 8, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ “Rural Economy Impacts” document was a draft internal document, which was not analytically robust; it was a literature review of existing studies and was not exhaustive. Where policy work is current, draft documents are usually kept within government, because they do not provide a complete and accurate picture of the overall material. This is a highly sensitive and fast-moving policy area. Releasing information that is at the formative stage of being shared between Government Departments risks substantially undermining our ability to deliver effective policy.

DEFRA retains an interest in the implications of shale gas development for rural communities, but the Department of Energy and Climate Change leads on the economic aspects of shale gas policy. It is therefore my view that DEFRA should not have produced a document of this kind. The redactions were made for those broader reasons, not on the basis of sensitivity of materials. In fact, in the interests of providing free access to the information on which the draft paper was based, the Government have provided the full list of references. Following Committee, I consulted with a range of colleagues. Releasing the unredacted draft paper would not help to inform the debate on developing the UK’s shale industry. I ask, therefore, that my hon. Friend withdraws her amendment.

[Caroline Lucas]

What the Minister has said, essentially, is that DEFRA should not do research that might possibly become embarrassing if it become public. How on earth does she expect people to have any confidence in the Government’s policies on fracking if the Government cannot even put the research in the public domain?

[Amber Rudd]

I do not think the hon. Lady quite heard my comments. If somebody in another Department has prepared something, a junior member perhaps, and it was not appropriate for them to have done so, which is a comment I have fairly made, I do not think it is appropriate for it to be released. It could mislead the public. It is because I am so concerned about the public that we have taken this view.

[Miss McIntosh]

I think my hon. Friend would wish to put a message out to rural communities today that we take their concerns very seriously indeed. We must be seen to listen, in the House this afternoon, to their concerns. It is unfortunate that the report will not be in the public domain. My hon. Friend answered one point on my amendment relating to blight. Does she also accept that in the event a house could not be sold, there may be an option for the fracking company to compulsoily purchase that property?

[Amber Rudd]

Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government take very seriously the security, the safety and the right of good abode of everybody in the rural community, and we will keep that constantly in our minds as we move forward.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

I am concerned that I still need to cover several amendments. If I may, I shall move swiftly on, and I hope that hon. Members with particular concerns will take the opportunity to speak later.

New clause 9 and amendments 49 and 57 propose a moratorium on the exploitation of onshore unconventional petroleum, subject to an impact assessment, and that the right of use be subject to the precautionary principle. I am surprised by these proposals. It is far more sensible to explore the potential of shale and assess the impacts along the way, while ensuring that development is regulated and risks managed. I hope I outlined my confidence in that process earlier. On the amendment suggesting that the right of use be subject to the precautionary principle, I reassure hon. Members that the right of use is limited to being no greater than access rights granted by landowners under the existing system.

Amendments, 51, 56 and 47 are not necessary. I have already outlined why the underground access provisions are required. Many other industries already access underground land beneath peoples’ homes, in order to lay cables and build infrastructure such as water pipes and tunnels. I ask that hon. Members do not press these amendments.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

I shall not take any more interventions, as I must finish my comments.

Amendments 50, 68, 69 and 73 touch on the recovery of UK petroleum. Amendment 50 would delete clause 37, which puts into primary legislation a new duty to maximise the economic recovery of oil and gas. The Government feel that oil and gas recovery makes an important contribution to the national economy by supporting jobs and growth. In June 2013, we commissioned Sir Ian Wood to review UK offshore oil and gas recovery and its regulation, and we have been making good progress implementing the recommendations.

The amendments would also place a moratorium on hydraulic fracking for shale gas to reduce the chance of our carbon budgets being breached. As I indicated, UK shale development is compatible with our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions and does not detract from our support for renewables. I hope hon. Members will find this explanation reassuring and will not press their amendments.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) for tabling new clauses 10 and 11. It is critical for any Government to secure reliable gas supplies, and we keep our gas security under constant review, but let me be clear: the risks to consumers are low. We still have significant levels of domestic gas production, pipelines from Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium, liquefied natural gas terminals and 10 gas storage facilities. Indeed, two new gas storage sites have opened for business in the last six months. This diversity of supply is how our gas needs are met.

Under the Gas Act 1986, the Government and the regulator have a duty to carry out their functions in a way that protects the interests of existing and future gas consumers, including the security of supply. Ofgem also has the ability to launch a significant code review, if it suspects a problem in the gas market. I respect my hon. Friend’s experience on these matters and take his concerns seriously, and on that basis, I will commit to including information about gas storage capacity in our annual statutory security of supply report to Parliament. I hope he will find that reassuring.

[Sir William Cash]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I will not, I am afraid, as I need to finish. I am sure other Members would like to speak.

On new clause 1, the Government welcome in principle the sentiment behind the proposed amendment to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 to make explicit reference to hydraulic fracturing, and I would like to reassure hon. Members that the Government will continue the work we have initiated and introduce any appropriate changes to the regulations in due course. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the new clause.

It is my firm belief that there is no need for new clause 19(e) or amendment 59, because the necessary protections are already in place. Outside source protection zone 1 areas, extraction activities will be permitted only if they do not pose a significant risk to groundwater.

In covering all the amendments and new clauses, I hope I have reassured hon. Members of the care the Government are taking to develop the best shale gas environment we can, for the benefit of the UK generally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I will not give way, because many Members wish to speak.

Other concerns have been mentioned. I am talking about not the extreme claims that do not stack up but the real issues around this matter such as water usage.

[Amber Rudd]

Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that we take this matter seriously. We will introduce a further amendment in the Lords to place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider in every carbon budget period advice from the Committee on Climate Change as to the impact of UK shale development on the UK’s overall climate change objectives. If the Committee on Climate Change advises that shale development adversely impacts on climate change objectives, the Secretary of State must either choose to deactivate the right of use provisions or to make a written statement to Parliament explaining the reasons.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for that welcome news. I was going to talk about water usage, but I will turn to that matter instead. The Minister’s words effectively bring us closer to proposed new clause 4 and amendment 44, which were tabled by me and a number of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. They propose that we should not allow fracking if it leads to an increase in carbon emissions.

I thank the Government for new clause 15, which takes us halfway there, and this other amendment, which takes us even further. We will know, as a result of this change, whether there are higher carbon emissions. The change does not go quite as far as banning fracking, but it is, none the less, a welcome step. I will not now be pressing new clause 4 and amendment 44 to a Division.

I still feel strongly about new clause 6, but we are waiting to get clarity from the Department about exactly which areas are excluded. I hope that we will get that clarity later. New clause 9, on a moratorium on onshore unconventional petroleum, was tabled by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who asked me to speak in support of it as she is unable to be here today. I believe that we should have that moratorium, and so am happy to support that new clause. I would love to hear what the position of the official Opposition is on it as they were not prepared to say. On amendments 50 and 51, which I also feel strongly about, the Opposition made it clear that they do not support them. We will see what happens if we have the opportunity to test the will of the House on those as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Amber Rudd Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

Possibly even further than me. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) knows, the line from Chesterfield goes through the Toton works, so one would imagine that there will be a good connection from Chesterfield and other stations to the new station we are planning at Toton.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

T3. I wonder whether the Secretary of State is aware that the Hastings to Ashford rail line is the only unelectrified line on the south coast line. Will he join me in calling for the electrification of this line so that my constituents can look forward to more reliable and better link times to London?

Oral Answers to Questions

Amber Rudd Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister has interpreted the question liberally and democratically, as one might have expected.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

4. What steps she is taking to encourage more women to become entrepreneurs.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall answer questions 4 and 9 together. The majority women-led small and medium-sized enterprises already—

[Maria Miller]

Thank you for that guidance, Mr Speaker.

The majority of women-led SMEs already contribute about £50 billion annually to the UK economy. We are building on that by promoting an entrepreneurial culture in schools and by identifying female role models and mentors. We also have a range of business support and access-to-finance schemes open to all entrepreneurs, male and female.

[Amber Rudd]

I have recently volunteered to be a mentor for the new enterprise allowance locally, although, curiously, I have not been appointed a mentee yet—I am sure that will be coming. Will the Minister join me in urging women with business experience, including Members of Parliament, to become a mentor and help other women become entrepreneurs?

[Maria Miller]

I pay tribute to the excellent work that my hon. Friend does in her constituency to support businesses. She is absolutely right that mentoring is a vital part of helping more women get involved in business. The Home Secretary announced funding of £600,000 towards to the Get Mentoring initiative last year, and to date more than 10,000 volunteer mentors have been trained, 42% of whom are female, and I announced a further £100,000 for this initiative last month.

Oral Answers to Questions

Amber Rudd Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The best way out of poverty for most families is work, and helping women in particular to stay close to the labour market when their children are young is an excellent way of helping to ensure that they can continue to progress in their work and support their families.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

Affordable and quality child care is essential to allow women to enter or stay in the work force. What additional investment are the Government putting into child care to ensure that women can make that choice if they wish?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend raises the important point of the affordability of child care. It was disappointing that under the previous Administration, child care costs went up by some 60%. We are trying to ensure that there is practical help for families. We are already investing some £2 billion in child care through the child care tax credit and the early education grants, and through universal credit there will be an extra £300 million to provide 80,000 extra families with child care support that they did not have before.

Oral Answers to Questions

Amber Rudd Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I had thought that the hon. Lady might have written to congratulate the Government on the major investment programme in Bristol which we announced at the end of last year, with a number of schemes going ahead. She might have written to congratulate the Government also on the new “better bus area” programme, which includes an extra £50 million for buses, £20 million for more green buses and more money for community transport. So there is a lot of money going into buses, and we are doing a great deal to protect bus passengers and to improve bus services.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

I know that the Minister is aware of the importance to economic growth of the Hastings to Bexhill link road, which he is now considering. Is he also aware of the enormous lengths that its promoters have gone to in order to mitigate environmental concerns, including the proposed building of dedicated tunnels for dormice that might have to cross the road?

[Justine Greening]

I was not aware of the proposals relating to dormice, although I very much welcome them. I have had many representations from people in that region about the importance of the scheme. We are considering them very carefully now, and I hope that we can announce our final decision on the scheme shortly.

Rail Services (Hastings)

Amber Rudd Excerpts

Friday 17th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

I should like to set the scene, if I may, of a beautiful town on the south-east coast. Some very exciting new projects are taking place in Hastings. We will have a new gallery at the end of this year, and we are rebuilding our pier after recently receiving Heritage Lottery Fund money. Saga, which moved to the town in the past year, is bringing 800 new jobs. I could go on and on about the amazing positive developments that are taking place in Hastings, but we also have some major problems, and sadly, I should like to take this opportunity to draw attention to those for a few minutes.

The index of multiple deprivation is like a sin list for boroughs. There are 352 on the list and Hastings has risen steadily up it—the top is the worst. We recently found ourselves, sadly, at No. 19. There is poverty and a lack of industry in the town. There has been much debate in the town on what can be done to change that. How can we bring about the regeneration that we so desperately need? Everyone has a different view, but transport is the one matter on which we are united. How can we improve transport, and particularly rail links to London, to stimulate the regeneration that we need?

We feel cut off, like an island. Road problems compound the rail problem. From London, it takes 1 hour and 50 minutes to get to York by rail, 1 hour 55 minutes to get to Cardiff, and 1 hour and 45 minutes to get to Hastings. It is clearly absurd that such a short distance takes such a long time. Under the previous Labour Government, we had no investment in our roads or rail. We were shamefully neglected.

I am encouraged by the Government’s speedy and affirmative action in respect of electrification on the Great Western route and other railways in the north-west of England, and I dare to hope that they will also deliver improvements for the people of Hastings.

Why is the train service in Hastings quite so bad? This is an unfortunate, historical situation. We were let down when the new railway was built in the 1850s, because it competed for speed with the one being built to Brighton. We have problems with our tunnels, single lines in certain areas and we are vulnerable to points failure and slow periods during journeys. We also have electrification problems, so 12 cars cannot go south of Tunbridge.

How do we achieve the improvements that we so badly need? I am happy to say that Network Rail is working with Southeastern trains on small improvements. Incremental improvements are being made that will shave seconds, possibly minutes, off our journey times. We so hope that we will not for ever be known as the Cinderella line. Improvements are being made this year to some of the assets, including the points, and in order to rein back some of the speed restrictions.

We had horrific problems over the winter caused obviously by the snow, but what my constituents really objected to was the lack of information—they were kept waiting for hours unable to access the right information. I am told that Southeastern Trains and Network Rail are now working closely with National Rail to provide that information. However,I am ambitious for my constituency. I want to get rid of this end-of-the-line reputation, and I want us to have a much, much better line in order to achieve the necessary regeneration. I do not want just these incremental improvements; I want a first-class line, so that we can make the great leap forward that we need. We need a better quality of line, and we need that without enormous costs to the taxpayer.

The recent McNulty report leads the way. We were faced with the shocking statistic that our lines cost over 40% more than European ones. It points out how to stop above-inflation rises and it tells us about the reforms that can be instigated within our railway lines to stop this constant rising of costs and deterioration of services. My constituents have had enough of these constant inflation-busting rises. McNulty stresses value for money, and that is what we need but are not getting in Hastings. We need the reforms to stop these constant rises.

I believe we need to be ambitious with our railway service. I believe that we need investment—we cannot make these changes without investment—but I am very aware of the situation in which the Government find themselves with the terrible deficit they inherited. Where else can we look for the investment we so desperately need? We should look to a longer franchise. Those of us in Hastings were disappointed when the Secretary of State for Transport said that there was likely to be a three to six-year franchise after 2014. We should remember that the McNulty report calls for longer franchises—he makes the point that it simply makes good business sense. Sadly, we are told that the franchise proposal is because of Thameslink, but why should Hastings, which is so urgently in need of regeneration, be subject to Thameslink? We feel that we are always an afterthought—the little sister to be hushed up in the corner. I respectfully ask the Minister to stop ignoring us when it comes to deciding transport priorities. We do not want always to be a consequence of what is going on in the Thameslink project. Let us have a longer franchise—at least in double digits—and then we can get some investment in our line.

We can surely include some requirements for change to modify and adapt within the Thameslink requirements. We should be part of the consideration of Thameslink. Thameslink can go ahead, and we can have our franchise extended within certain requirements for modification if Thameslink requires it. However, having three to six-year franchises, as suggested, is like treading water with a repeatedly shoddy line. We urge the Minister to ensure that we are not let down and to reconsider the proposal. However, if the Department proceeds with a shorter franchise, at the very least we would ask it to focus on requiring an intermediary timetable change across the network for Hastings services to ensure that one of the existing trains per hour converts to a fast one.

My rail action group had a meeting with Southeastern Trains to put this proposal to it, and it responded by showing us the existing franchise to demonstrate that it had no room for manoeuvre. If we are to have the same type of shorter franchise as a stop-gap, which is not what we desire, we would ask that it be less prescriptive, so that we can at least have some fast trains a day. What we need from this investment is upgraded electrification and, eventually, double-tracking. I urge the Government to consider what could be done to help us achieve that. Perhaps there could be match funding when the new franchise is introduced. With £34 billion going into High Speed 2, perhaps we could have a small amount down in Hastings, so that the new franchise could have some investment to encourage the upgrades that we so desperately need.

I would also like to mention European funding. It sometimes feels like an elusive rabbit that keeps skipping across us in the picture. People say to us, “Have you tried European funding?” or, “What about TEN-T funding?”, but it seems to slip away from us whenever we try to reach out, or find out where it comes from or who can guide us. I would therefore be grateful for any guidance from the Minister on whether we should try to get European funding.

The franchise should be longer, but less prescriptive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) has long campaigned for this. He has recent experience of travelling on the line—I believe at the front of the train, with the driver—and supports our efforts to secure a longer franchise.

Let me say a word about the Cannon Street to Hastings line. Every few years, it seems that we in Hastings have to fight once more to keep the service. Once more, we are being told, “Well, you may or may not get to keep it—it depends on Thameslink.” Please do not make us dependent on Thameslink. We need our Cannon Street service. We are a town that has some areas of deprivation. I hate going on about the deprivation—I would much rather extol the virtues of Hastings—but given that we have those problems, I must point out that the commuters who take the Cannon Street line are important to us because they are the higher earners. Sometimes people say, “Don’t worry about Cannon Street: if they get to Blackfriars or St Paul’s, they’ll be absolutely fine,” but I do not agree. Some 80% of the passengers who arrive at Cannon Street make their way on foot. Arriving at London Bridge or St Paul’s is entirely different. We need to keep the Cannon Street service, and we will campaign hard to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) has asked me to add his voice to this debate. He has said that the Cannon Street service is

“essential to both commuters and businesses”

in his constituency, and that it

“should not be put under threat or in any way adversely affected by the Thameslink programme. Rail companies in East Sussex are already struggling to maintain a reasonable level of service due to poor investment in the track, signalling and rolling stock in the past. My constituents deserve a better deal. I seek investment to improve rail travel to make it affordable, reliable and sustainable.”

He puts it well and reinforces the arguments that I am making.

My constituents are patient, but we believe that we deserve better. We are ambitious for our town and for our regeneration. We have a rail action group, the St Leonards and Hastings Rail Improvement Programme, which is known locally as SHRIMP. SHRIMP is not known for its militancy, but we hope to change that. We will be stepping the campaign up and making our case, to make it clear that the rail links for Hastings are not incidental to our regeneration, and that we do not want to be incidental to the Thameslink programme. I would ask the Minister to consider helping us to structure a franchise to deliver a first-class line to a first-class town.

McNulty Report and West Coast Rail

Amber Rudd Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I had a productive meeting with him, some of his parliamentary colleagues and local councillors about the project. I think they took from that meeting clear guidance on what needs to be done to raise the project’s prospects of achieving local authority major scheme funding. I remain happy to engage with him and his colleagues in progressing that project.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

Wages in Hastings have fallen dramatically against the rest of the south-east in the past 10 years, but wages of commuters are significantly higher. Does the Secretary of State agree that if we manage to redress the imbalance between the continually deteriorating service and higher wages, we would improve the regeneration of towns such as Hastings as well as the quality of life of commuters themselves?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right. High-quality rail services deliver major economic benefits to the towns they serve, which, of course, is one of the major rationales behind the Government’s enthusiasm for the high-speed rail project.

Oral Answers to Questions

Amber Rudd Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I understand that the construction costs per mile are much higher here than in other countries, and that is one reason why I initiated the review. Many representations have also been made to me about the precise matter that the hon. Gentleman raises—the cost associated with utilities—and that is a central part of the review I am undertaking.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to improve rail transport in the south-east.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

Despite the crisis in the public finances, the Government have secured investment of more than £18 billion in rail capital projects, including Thameslink and Crossrail, which will deliver major benefits to the south-east as well as to the national economy. To protect the interests of passengers, the Department for Transport also monitors the performance of train operators under their franchise contracts.

[Amber Rudd]

The issue in the south-east seems to be capacity, and we cannot continue to put ever more passengers on the same lines. Does the Minister agree that an upgrade of the Brighton to Ashford line might increase capacity and improve the quality of travel for passengers, and that it would be a great addition for all residents of the south-east?