Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill
Debate between Hilary Benn and Baroness Keeley(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case on behalf of her constituents, but does she share my puzzlement about this? The Government have made a screeching U-turn today and finally committed to a local veto. Every Member who has spoken representing areas where there has been fracking or there might be fracking has made it quite clear that there is no prospect of getting local consent; there will be a veto everywhere. Why are we going through this whole process when every one us of knows what the outcome will be?
Barbara Keeley
It is as much of a puzzle to me as it is to my right hon. Friend.
Going back to the report of the British Geological Survey, on the same day on which it was published, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy announced his intention to revisit the safety limits on fracking. He said that
“tolerating a higher degree of risk and disturbance appears to us to be in the national interest”.
I do not know whether that answers my right hon. Friend’s question, but it is weird. Now the Secretary of State’s amendment to the motion indicates that he will seek
“clear advice on seismic limits and safety”.
Which is it—tolerating earthquakes and dangerous tremors, or listening to the evidence commissioned by his own Department?
Fears about pollution, contaminated water supply and seismic events are by no means far-fetched. An earthquake caused by fracking near Blackpool measured 2.9 on the Richter scale. It led to the works being stopped immediately and the company responsible apologising.
Other concerns about drilling for shale gas extend beyond the environmental. In 2014, a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report forecast that house prices were likely to fall by up to 7% within a mile of fracking wells, and that the price of house insurance would also rise within five miles of fracking wells. It is right that we end our reliance on Russian oil and gas, but fracking is neither the solution nor part of the solution. The Government should instead be focusing on boosting the UK’s use of renewable and nuclear energy.
Fracking is an issue of great importance to my constituents and a vote on it should not be used as a confidence vote by this failing Conservative Government trying to bully their Members into line. There is an alternative. Labour’s plan for energy would quadruple offshore wind and double onshore wind capacity. Instead of blocking new solar projects, as the Prime Minister is planning to do, Labour would triple solar power, which is up to nine times cheaper than gas. It is irresponsible to revisit the question of fracking when we know that it will have profound environmental impacts and make life very difficult for those people living near a fracking site. It is ignoring what happened in the past. It is ignoring scientific and expert opinion. It is reckless and it is dangerous.
The flimsy measures in the Government’s amendment to today’s motion are another case of their moving the goalposts to achieve their own ends. Before it was about safety, but the report that they commissioned is not to their liking. Now it is about consent, but the Secretary of State should know that we already have
“a robust system of local consent”.
It is called listening. I know that my constituents do not want fracking, because they have made it very clear indeed. When will the Government respect the evidence, respect the experts and respect the public, and finally put the threat of this awful process of fracking to rest?
Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England)
Debate between Hilary Benn and Baroness Keeley
Hilary Benn
That is the concern of everyone in the House. The most important thing is that firefighters should be fit to do the task they are asked to undertake and that they volunteer to do on behalf of society, and I am coming to that point.
We have two different potential measures of fitness, one of 42 and another of 35. Why does that matter? Dr Williams adopted a VO2 max of 42 as the benchmark for his recommendations because fitness levels are not academic. It is a question of safety. He said:
“Studies show that below an aerobic fitness standard of 42…the risk of sudden catastrophic cardiac events increases, and below the level of 35…the increase is significant”.
More recently, an interim report, produced by the university of Bath in March and entitled “Enhancing the Health, Fitness and Performance of UK Firefighters”, identified that
“firefighters with an aerobic capacity below an occupational fitness standard of 42.3…would not be guaranteed to be safe and effective in their ability to complete necessary roles within their occupation…the lower VO2 max standard of 35…for continuation of work with remedial training amongst operational firefighters is potentially unsafe for the majority of firefighters.”
The House is owed an explanation from Ministers. What do they have to say about that? I hope that the House will now understand why concern has been expressed about the question of fitness standards.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Barbara Keeley
Will my right hon. Friend come on to the issue of women firefighters, many of whom are fearful of being driven out? On the one hand, we are trying to get more women firefighters and on the other they are terrified of being driven out by these fitness standards.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and if she bears with me for just a moment I shall come directly to her point.
This is the central problem with the regulations: Ministers appear to have based all their assumptions for the pension scheme on the 35 VO2 max measure. They assume that all firefighters will be able to maintain operational fitness when they cannot even tell us what the fitness standard will be and when their own assumption of a fitness standard would put the safety of firefighters and the public at risk, which is what the Williams report and the report from the university of Bath say.
Dr Williams also states that many of the fire and rescue authorities, understanding the importance of the VO2 max standard, insist on a standard of 42 for operational fitness. Furthermore, Dr Williams found that in the best case assumption, if the 42 standard were used, as opposed to the 35 standard,
“the age related decline in VO2 max”—
due to the natural ageing process—
“would indicate that 15% of firefighters would be unfit for duty at 55 years, increasing to 23% at 60 years of age”.
As for women firefighters, Dr Williams said this:
“more women are likely to drop below the required aerobic fitness standard as they age.”
Those figures amount to a lot of firefighters, yet the Government have failed to respond properly to the Williams review. In fairness to the Minister, she has set up a working party to consider fitness standards, but we do not know what that working party will recommend. Given that many fire and rescue authorities have a fitness standard of 42, is she going to tell the House that she thinks it will recommend a lower fitness standard than that which is currently applied by many fire and rescue authorities?
Business of the House (Thursday)
Debate between Hilary Benn and Baroness Keeley(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn
And judging by the number of Members who wish to intervene, this is probably just a prelude to the speeches that they will make.
Hilary Benn
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley).
Barbara Keeley
My right hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way this evening. Let me touch on the point that he made about the impact on universities. We have already heard a little about Salford university this evening, and about how many local young people attend it. Indeed, there are two Salford graduates on the Labour Benches listening to this debate, and we are very concerned indeed about the possibility of our course—politics and contemporary history, which we both did at Salford university—disappearing. Will there be time in five hours to consider not just the future of social science courses such as the politics and contemporary history course at Salford—which was an excellent course, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) will agree—but the future of this House? Where are the future Labour and other candidates going to come from if these politics and contemporary history courses disappear?
Hilary Benn
The importance and the power of a university education is indeed to give people the chance to understand where we come from. If we do not understand where we come from, it is difficult to work out where we should be going.