Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration

Ed Davey Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to be able to speak in a debate of such importance to my constituency. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for applying to the Backbench Business Committee for it. It follows in the path of a similar debate that I held in Westminster Hall at the end of last year. That debate, too, was heavily oversubscribed. I will therefore focus my comments on one or two significant areas.

I was elected in 2010. At the point of my election, it became very clear that shale gas activity—or, at that time, just gas activity—was taking place in my constituency. I would urge caution on Labour Members before they make this whole thing very political, because it was the actions of the previous Labour Government that delivered shale gas to my constituency. I say to the Liberal Democrats that it was a huge privilege to work in the then Department of Energy and Climate Change as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), who is in his place today. Much of the work that was done on putting in traffic lights and some of the regulatory framework should have been done by the Labour Government before they gave the green light to proceed with shale gas and fracking, but none of it was.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points. I hope he can confirm that in those years we allowed local democracy to function. I opposed people who were arguing for permitted development, and opposed the idea that this should be some sort of national infrastructure project. We put on, after vast consultation, very strict regulation with regard to seismicity, and we had his support for that. Will he continue with that support?

[Mark Menzies]

That is why I called the Westminster Hall debate last year and why I am on my feet today. It is absolutely critical that permitted development, which has a place in our planning system, is for, say, a small extension to a bungalow or a conservatory, not for an enormous industrial estate that will produce tens of thousands of tonnes of pollutants, have thousands of vehicle movements per year, and so on.

I thank the Minister and the Department for listening to the case that I and local people put with regard to the Roseacre Wood site in my constituency. That was a long-running case that had gone through a number of stages in the planning process, including two planning inquiries. We made the case that the site was unsuitable, primarily because it was up country lanes, and regardless of how we tried to cut it, the traffic management plan simply did not work. I am not sure where traffic management plans fit in under permitted development. A fundamental reason why a site was turned down would not be a consideration under permitted development. If the Minister is looking for a reason why this proposal does not stack up, he should refer to Roseacre Wood and the decision tree that kicked in. It was turned down on those grounds, and therefore the Government simply cannot proceed with the permitted development proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, especially in respect of solar power and community energy renewables.

When I was Secretary of State and had to deal with these issues, some people in the coalition thought that shale gas was the answer to everything and would reduce energy prices. They were extremely keen to push it forward. I was not one of those people. I was helped in my far more cautious approach by colleagues such as the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and others on the Conservative Benches, who realised that we had to be extremely cautious about the environmental issues and the local planning issues. One reason I am proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for calling this debate is my concern that the controls agreed by the coalition—being very strong on local democracy and risks such as seismicity—are in danger of being removed. I was concerned that this relatively new industry had to be safely regulated, for the environment and to take account of local issues.

When we looked at seismicity in particular, we took advice from the experts. We had advice from the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering about what would be the right approach to regulation on seismicity. We consulted widely. I published the report that was given to me, and I asked for people’s opinions on it. We took a precautionary approach even to the evidence.

I came to the view, and accepted the recommendation, that the traffic light system was the way to go and that we needed a precautionary approach, not least because the geologists and experts were telling us that even a small seismic event underground could damage the casing of the wells and the bore holes of the fracks. I therefore accepted that we needed to be cautious, and it was important to give that reassurance to the public. We decided that we would go ahead, but only on that explicitly cautious basis.

In the ministerial statement I gave in December 2012, setting out that cautious regulatory regime, I said that it could perhaps be looked at again in due course. However, for the benefit of the House, let me be really clear about what we were saying at that time. We wanted a significant amount of evidence—this had to be evidence based. So far we have had very few fracking experiences in this country, so we do not have anywhere near the number of data points or the amount of evidence that we would need to possibly allow anything to go forward.

[Wera Hobhouse]

On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is interesting to compare the Government’s planning approach to fracking with their planning approach to renewable energy?

[Sir Edward Davey]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the Government proceed to allow permitted development, that will be in sharp contrast to their planning approach to onshore wind. I had almost weekly battles with the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who was trying to stop onshore wind. We won most of them, but after the 2015 election the Government made it almost impossible to build onshore wind in England and Wales. That very negative approach to renewables stands in stark contrast to what the Government appear to want to do on fracking.

I bring that to the House’s attention because those are completely the wrong priorities, not least because of the climate change crisis. If anything, I have got more sceptical about fracking over the years, because the evidence—particularly after Paris—is that we need to be even more rigorous in reducing our fossil fuel usage. Now that we have gone from a 2° target to a 1.5° target, we have to push the renewable agenda further forward.

I would say to the Minister that when we were thinking about shale gas, we were thinking about making sure it was linked to technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which are now in abeyance. Without CCS, there is much less of an argument for fracked gas. Moreover, renewables technology has increased and improved dramatically. Prices have come down much further. We have seen storage technology come on. We are not going to need the gas that people thought we would need just a few years ago.

The relaxation of regulations, whether on seismicity or planning, is completely unjustified, and I hope the House will send a clear message to Ministers. However, I would go even further. Given that we have had such progress on renewables and storage, the case for fracking gas is much weaker than it was just a few years ago. I urge the Government to rethink their priorities. Let us bank and capitalise on the amazing success of new green technologies; let us not look backwards.