Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I welcome these amendments and very much welcome what my noble friend just said. I do not point at my noble friend in saying this, but I am always disappointed, given the truism about gas being the future, that we have not made more effort to make sure that, in the short term, gas is substituted for coal and that we have a far more rigorous gas industry than we have at the moment. That was the route forward, but we have been unable to put it to bed during the passage of the Energy Bill and now of the Infrastructure Bill. I hope that it is something that can at least be given greater attention after the election. However, I welcome these new clauses.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the government amendments in this group touch on the role of the Committee on Climate Change in advising on the impact which combustion and fugitive emissions from petroleum have on the carbon budget. I understand that this was introduced in the other place as a result of a Lib Dem initiative, and we are fully supportive. We have always said that, if fracking is to take place, we would need the appropriate framework for regulation and need to consider a wider range of issues on which it will have an impact, including climate change. The Climate Change Act 2008, which was introduced by the then Labour Government, was an important piece of legislation that subsequently established the Committee on Climate Change. We therefore support the Committee’s role in advising the Government.

[Lord Teverson]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, sits down, can I just point out one thing that I want to get off my chest? The Climate Change Act was a great thing that the Labour Government did, but among the amendments that they did not allow was one about excluding traded EU ETS certificates from the carbon budget. That means that the power sector is still largely excluded from the Climate Change Act and carbon budgets. It is a big hole in the system and it is regrettable that those changes were never made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I thank my noble friend, but a significant amount will still be LNG and I do not think that undermines my point. I know that my noble friend Lord Truscott has lots of experience, but I must admit that I was surprised by his analysis. Even if we are sceptical, it was a British geological survey, after all, which identified 1,300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. If we take only 10% of that as capable of being extracted, which is a reasonably modest assessment, that is something like 40 years’ supply of the gas that we use—and we are being invited to say that we should not even consider using it.

My noble friend suggested that it was all about the current price of oil and gas. Of course we should take that into account, but as he was invited to say, is he seriously thinking that companies will invest in shale exploration without any prospect of return? I talked to companies recently about this and said, “Aren’t you deterred by the current price?”. They said no, because they do not invest at today’s prices. They are talking about a plan that is likely to take five years. I do hope that the House will support the government amendment.

On protecting groundwater, of course we should be doing that. Again, I have looked at this carefully. Apart from the fact that there has been very little evidence of methane contamination from fracking, we are talking about a six-inch pipe being drilled down. When it goes through the aquifer, which is at approximately 300 to 400 feet, multiple layers of steel and concrete contain the gas on its way to the surface and prevent it escaping into surrounding rock and groundwater.

What about the myth about the chemicals? We should remind ourselves that 99.95% is just sand and water and that the 0.05% consists only of approved non-hazardous chemicals, one of which is polyacrylamide, which is used for contact lens solution. We would be unlikely to use that chemical for a solution like that if we thought that it was seriously hazardous.

I am just as concerned about the environment and the water supply as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but I am also concerned about those who, frankly in my opinion, misapply science and deliberately distort data rather than convey to the public the facts and the independent assessment, which is what this House should be doing. On those grounds, I hope that this House will overwhelmingly support the government amendments.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I set out the Labour Party’s position on this group of amendments, because what I hear is a gathering debate on the merits of fracking and I have no intention whatever of referring to that.

The essence of our position is to explore the difference between Amendment 21 and the other amendments in the group and to try to persuade the Government that their amendment may require fine tuning. However, we will not seek to divide the House on our amendment and we will not support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

On Monday 26 January, the Government accepted a Labour amendment to the Infrastructure Bill to overhaul the regulations for shale gas. This was a huge U-turn by the Government and a big victory for the protection of Britain’s environment. Labour has always said that shale gas extraction cannot go ahead unless there is a system of robust regulation and comprehensive inspection, but David Cameron has repeatedly ignored people’s genuine and legitimate environmental concerns over shale gas. Now, thanks to Labour’s amendment, the Government have been forced to accept that tough protections and proper safeguards must be in place before fracking can go ahead. I must make it clear that we are very pleased about the Government’s U-turn and think that it is in the best interests of the nation and the environment.

On Thursday 5 February, the Government tabled their own redrafted version of the amendment that is before the House today. Our position remains as it has been for three years: namely, that regulatory gaps need to be filled to ensure the right conditions are in place before any drilling to explore or extract unconventional gas is permitted. The Government’s amendment accepts a number of the regulatory safeguards that we proposed, which we welcome. However, it also excludes protections that were agreed to in the other place, most notably on the monitoring of fugitive emissions, notification of residents affected by fracking, and safeguards for protected areas and groundwater source areas. I must make it clear to the House that if the Government’s amendment is passed today, it will be challenged, if necessary, in the other place. Therefore, we will listen to the Minister’s response with great care, and it will be considered with great care by colleagues in the other place.

While the Government have said that their version of the Labour amendment redrafts, but does not substantially alter, its terms, I have a number of concerns. The original Labour amendment referred to fugitive emissions. The government version limits this to fugitive methane emissions. Does the Minister recognise that there will be other emissions arising from shale extraction, including CO₂? Why have they not included this in the scope of their amendment?

The original Labour amendment referred to mandatory environmental impact assessments. The government version refers only to the environmental impact, stopping short of a full EIA. Will the Government explain their rationale for this? What, in the eyes of the Minister, is the practical difference between a full EIA and the requirements of this proposed new clause?

The original Labour amendment referred to no fracking within or under protected areas. The government version refers to that only within protected areas. Does the Minister accept that this could still lead to hydraulic fracturing underneath national parks and other areas?

The original Labour amendment referred to a prohibition on developments inside groundwater protection zones. A definition of groundwater protection zones is already given by the Environment Agency, yet the government version refers to protected groundwater areas and suggests that these should be defined in a future statutory instrument. Why are the Government not using the existing definition?

The original Labour amendment required that residents should be notified individually. This is not required in the government amendment. The Minister has already set out some of the reasons for not accepting this requirement. It seems to me that she should go further in explaining why this requirement cannot be met. I believe that the requirement for individual notification exists in other legislation and that the practicality of the absolute concept which she used in her argument is overcome in other legislation. We certainly want to make sure that residents are fully informed and that there is a high probability of all individuals affected being informed.

I repeat that we will not divide the House on our amendment or support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.