Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

These are sensible amendments.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the government amendments, because in effect they are in keeping with the spirit of the Commons amendments and ensure a practical application so that shale gas exploration will go ahead.

I will address as briefly as I can some of the assertions —and they were assertions—made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She was invited to give the source of what she alleged and was unable to do so. That is really unfortunate.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I am perfectly able to do so, but sadly not at this precise moment. I am more than happy to do so in the future.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

With due respect, I do not think that is good enough. If we are going to enter into a debate in your Lordships’ House in which assertions are made that in essence the exploration of shale gas and fracking is unsafe, it ought to be backed up now with the evidence. The noble Baroness has had the opportunity to do so.

I try to enter this debate sharing the same concerns as the noble Baroness—concern for the environment and for the benefit to the public as a whole—and I do not take any assertions from the companies that might be involved in it: I go to sources such as Durham University, which is conducting an independent assessment, I look at the House of Lords report. We keep hearing assertions about earth tremors and earthquakes, but I thought we had nailed that in the last debate. There will be continuous seismic monitoring. Operations will stop if there is a tremor of 0.5, and at 0.5, believe me, the earth would not move for anybody in this Chamber, whatever they were doing, so to allege that the Government and this House are somehow colluding with an unsafe practice is totally irresponsible.

Let us remind ourselves that we are still going to be dependent on gas. By 2025, something like 70% of it is likely to be imported. Let us remind ourselves what happens with imported gas. First, it could be fracked elsewhere, where the conditions are not likely to be quite as well protected and monitored as ours are. Then it has to be liquefied, transported and then de-liquified to be put back into its gaseous state. Are we saying that is preferable to using our own resources? I do not understand that analysis and I do not think it is borne out.

[Lord Truscott]

Of course, not all imported gas has to come as LNG. Some can come directly through the interconnectors with the continent or through pipelines from Norway, for example.

[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.