Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Tom Greatrex

Thursday 19th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I pay tribute to the huge expertise of my parliamentary neighbour, who will step down from this House next week, in this area. He has reminded me of something I should have said in my previous answer, which is to include demand-side response as one of the many ways in which we need to help manage the transmission system with more renewables on the grid.

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

According to National Grid, on 26 December less than 1% of power generated into the national grid in Scotland came from wind, meaning that electricity generated south of the border and the doubling of output from the coal-fired Longannet power station in Fife kept our lights on. The Minister will be aware that Iberdrola, the Spanish owner of ScottishPower, which operates Longannet, has decided not to invest to make it compliant with the industrial emissions directive and is now threatening to announce the closure of that power station next week, jeopardising hundreds of skilled jobs. Given Iberdrola’s public statements, what discussions has the Minister had with the Spanish power company or National Grid about the implications of potential closure?

[Matthew Hancock]

We have of course considered the implications of the closure of any major power plant. Alongside National Grid, we continually assess the security of supply risks across Great Britain, including in Scotland. We are confident that we have the tools to address any issues at Longannet and any other fossil fuel plant that may close. We will ensure that the procedures and policies are always put in place to make sure that the supplies of energy are secure.

[Tom Greatrex]

I thank the Minister for that reply, but he will be aware that various public claims have been made by or on behalf of Iberdrola ScottishPower about the impact of closure on both security of supply and group resilience, and that National Grid has rejected those claims. What assessment has his Department made of the claims and their implications? Given the conflicting statements made in the public domain, will he publish the assessment and advice so that the veracity of the claims and counterclaims can be properly tested?

[Matthew Hancock]

I have looked in detail at the claims, and they are not correct. National Grid’s assessment is that the closure of Longannet is not a threat to the security of supply. I think that we should trust the assessment of the transmission grid operator, rather than that of an individual company playing one small part in the operation. I will of course look at what we can publish to make those reassurances yet more concrete.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Debate between Matt Hancock and Tom Greatrex

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Greatrex]

I will not give way again, because I am conscious of the time, and I hope that we can reach the stage at which my amendments are put to a vote.

Let me now deal with what the Minister said about environmental impact assessments. She had previously accepted that they should be mandatory for all shale gas sites, not just those measuring more than 1 hectare. The Government’s proposed new clause, however, would ensure only that

“the environmental impact of the development... has been taken into .account”.

That stops short of a full commitment to an environmental impact assessment.

Like the Minister in the other place, this Minister said that individual notification was impractical. Let me raise a point that I wanted her to clarify earlier, namely the decision to exclude shale gas operators from the need to notify people individually. That requirement still applies to other horizontal activities, such as those involving geothermal energy. Why has the arrangement been changed when it will still apply to operators of another technology? That seems absurd to me.

The Government accepted our amendment on Report, which required that

“site-by-site measurement, monitoring and public disclosure of existing and future fugitive emissions is carried out”.

Their version weakens that wording on two counts. First, it limits the emissions to methane emissions, and to emissions generated during the operation of the site. As the Minister will know, the nature of hydraulic fracturing means that methane and other gases may continue to leak upwards through fractures and the borehole long after a site is decommissioned. Given a greenhouse gas impact about 25 times as potent as a tonne of carbon dioxide, it is vital that those emissions are properly reported.

The Minister seemed to think that amendment (c) was not necessary, because there would be no activity before the deadline of 31 July deadline. If that deadline is placed in law, what reason is there for not ensuring that there is absolute clarity, so that people cannot misunderstand? The Minister gave the impression that she agreed that there would be no activity within that time frame, but I think it important for the law to be properly clarified.

One of the reasons we tabled a number of amendments is that the Government have been unclear about policy in several areas. On Report, we moved an amendment to include hydraulic fracturing under the scheduled list of activities in the environmental permitting regulations. That amendment was not carried, but in the debate the Minister said that

“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”—[Official Report, 26 January 2015; Vol. 591, c. 596.]

However, in answer to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on 9 February, her DEFRA colleague the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) said:

“There are no immediate plans to amend the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.”

Will the Minister clarify that? Was she mistaken when she told the House that the regulations were being updated, or was it her colleague in DEFRA, who said there were no such plans? That is just one example and I am going to list another couple where there is inconsistency in what the Government have said even in the last couple of weeks. That hardly helps us to have confidence in the integrity of the regulatory regime, and that is why I believe our amendments are still necessary.

On Report, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), who is in his place, asked whether Health and Safety Executive inspections would be unannounced. The Minister replied:

“The short answer to that is yes.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2015; Vol. 591, c. 589.]

However, in a written answer on 4 February the Minister for Disabled People, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), said:

“Decisions on whether an inspection is announced or unannounced are made on a case by case basis by the HSE inspector.”

Which is it? Are they unannounced or not? Is the “short answer” also the wrong answer, or, again, have we got confusion at the heart of Government about the way in which these regulations will be applied?

The Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Business and Enterprise, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), was asked whether DEFRA had a role in regulating shale gas, and he said on 10 February:

“DEFRA does not have a direct regulatory role in shale gas operations”.

However, the hon. Member for North Cornwall said on 3 February:

“DEFRA is responsible for the environmental aspects of shale gas policy”.

With this kind of confusion, it is not difficult to see why people accuse the Government of not taking the regulations for shale gas seriously, and why there is a lack of confidence in what the Government are saying this evening and what they have been saying over the past couple of weeks.

[The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Greatrex]

No. I am concluding now as I know other Members wish to speak in the short time available to us.

Just over two weeks ago we had a debate in which we discussed a number of different aspects of this subject in a very constrained time frame. We also did so in good faith. We accepted the Government were taking our new clause 19 as it then was, and I also accepted in conversation with Ministers that they would seek to correct some ambiguities in it. I do not have a problem with that, but what I do have a problem with is the way in which the Government have weakened the scope of what was agreed by this House. As I have said, this is not a list to cherry-pick from, and it is not a party political issue. It is an issue that affects a number of communities across the UK—and a number of communities represented by Members of the Minister’s party, my party and other parties represented in this House. We all want to have confidence in the regulatory regime—that it is robust, that monitoring is comprehensive, and that can inform debates in local areas. By watering down aspects of the amendments that were accepted by this House the Government are at risk of undermining that case around which I felt on 26 January the House had united. I think the Government will come to regret that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Tom Greatrex

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

One of the advantages of onshore oil and gas exploration is that the jobs offshore often require similar skills sets, so there is the potential for crossover. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Wood review is being implemented to improve the regulatory regime offshore to ensure that it is more flexible and that we can get maximum economic recovery from under the North sea. We are also reviewing the fiscal regime to ensure that we incentivise the production of North sea oil, which is good for the whole of the UK.

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

As the Minister is aware, planning powers and the permitting regime that takes place through the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which is responsible to Ministers in Edinburgh, mean that no fracking can happen in Scotland without the approval of the SNP in Holyrood. It is a matter for them and, frankly, they should stop trying to distort that debate by suggesting that it is not. Following submissions made by me and others, the cross-party Smith agreement included commitments not just on licensing but to devolve underground mineral access rights, which are effectively a secondary aspect of the planning process, to Scotland. Labour has tabled an amendment to the Infrastructure Bill, which is now in Committee, to make that commitment good now. Will the Minister commit to supporting that amendment, which will help make clear and consistent, beyond nationalist distortion, where responsibility for such matters lies?

[Matthew Hancock]

We are absolutely clear about the policy: Scotland will be responsible for onshore oil and gas exploration. That will include not only planning, as is the case now and which is an effective veto, but the positive aspects of licensing. It is a matter for the Scottish Government now, and in the future it will be unambiguously a matter for the Scottish Government. We are carefully considering whether that is done through the Infrastructure Bill or through a future Scotland Bill, but we can put beyond any doubt the clear commitment of the two Front Benches of the major parties in the UK that the onshore exploration of oil and gas is a matter for the Scottish Government in Scotland.

Fracking

Debate between Matt Hancock and Tom Greatrex

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will respond to as many points as I can in what has been a largely reasonable and reasoned debate. In particular, the short contribution of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), was commendable for its—

[Tom Greatrex]

Brevity.

[Matthew Hancock]

For its brevity, but also for its tone, which is similar to the Government’s tone—it is incumbent on the Government to explore the potential of that geological asset deep beneath the ground. The potential described by the geologists is great, but the question of how much can be extracted is as yet unanswered. It is necessary to find out that answer, but we have to do so reasonably, carefully and safely. I therefore take on board many of the points made by many hon. Members about regulation. We are working to continue strengthening what is already a strong and robust regulatory system.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) started with the triumvirate of goals that sit atop energy policy: to ensure security of supply, to reduce carbon emissions and to encourage jobs and growth. Any Energy Minister presented with a potential opportunity to deal with all three together will of course want to investigate further. That is the potential behind exploring for shale gas.

First, the benefits of shale gas to energy security are clear and obvious. As a country, we are lucky that for 50 years we have been able to extract oil and gas from underneath the North sea. Just as there was a debate about whether to do that 50 years ago, there is now a debate about whether to extract resources from deep beneath the land. The answer with North sea oil was right: yes, we should explore, and we should do so within a strong and robust regulatory framework. That was what we did. The answer of 50 years ago is the same today with shale gas: yes, we should explore, and we should do so within a robust and clear regulatory structure. Shale gas could help our energy security, so that we may reduce our reliance on overseas energy supplies, which sometimes come from countries that are not friendly towards us.

Secondly, there is undoubted and clear evidence from the United States that, by replacing coal, gas can reduce carbon emissions. Gas has half coal’s carbon emissions per unit of energy. The debate about coal will continue, but being able to replace coal is nevertheless important.

Thirdly, if there is a clear supply of gas, that will encourage and support jobs and growth, because of the direct benefits that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) spoke about so powerfully. As he argued, there is a need for fair distribution of the resources from under the ground. The proposal for a sovereign wealth fund is an attractive one, and I look forward to working with him and others on the details of the design of that fund, to make sure that the allocation of those resources is fair. After all, if the exploration succeeds, there will be a substantial return.

There are questions about how that return is allocated: how much of it goes to the local population, how much to local authorities and how much to the national taxpayer? Who controls a sovereign wealth fund? How much goes to local communities and in what form? How much goes into paying for the exploration and production, which have costs? How much of it goes into paying for regulators? The point made by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West is important: if production gets going in a big way, the regulator will of course have to expand in scale. We are lucky, in that we are exploring for something of high value, so there will be revenue that in future can be used to provide exactly the sort of regulatory scale he talked about.

The contribution that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood has already made to the debate on this issue is a strong one. We can see that in our discussion of the sovereign wealth fund. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who has made that case strongly as well, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies).

Several Members asked about the strength of the regulatory regime. It is undoubtedly stronger than the regime in the United States. Indeed, the environmental impact assessment for the Cuadrilla planning proposal that is outstanding in Lancashire ran to 4,500 pages. It is quite hard to argue that there is not enough detail in that.

Many hon. Members talked about public opinion. Polling from August was read out; that polling says that around a quarter of people support fracking. The same polling showed that about a quarter of people oppose it, and the vast majority of people are in the middle. That shows the importance of having an informed debate. To inform that debate, we have published a number of studies, including from the Royal Society, with incredible detail and length, and shorter resources by the Department and the Office of Unconventional Oil and Gas, such as “Shale gas made simple”, which bring out the salient details in a clear, short form for lay readers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Tom Greatrex

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

There will be continued further action to support manufacturers, and not only on the skills front, where it is vital to increase engineering skills. In April there will be a further cut in corporation tax to help companies to employ more people—something that is opposed by the Labour party.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his engagement with the all-party group for the steel and metal related industry. Its members are from across the whole of the UK and they are concerned about the Tata Steel situation. May I implore him again—this was raised earlier—to ensure that his Department’s engagement with the Klesch group is predicated on trying to secure as many of those jobs as possible for the long term? People in the steel industry in my constituency and across the UK are very concerned, given the Klesch group’s record in other parts of Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Tom Greatrex

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I have been working hard with UK Coal to ensure that we can refinance it. The Government have put in a £4 million loan on a commercial basis, so we are working incredibly hard in that regard. The hon. Gentleman should also take up this matter with his own Front-Bench team who voted to accelerate the closure of coal-fired power stations, which would of course to help to undermine the coal mining industry.

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

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), last week the Minister stated in this House with his characteristic humility and good grace that he had

“secured the future of the existing pits.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 247.]

He knows of course that, welcome as it may be, the commercial loan from the Government is in reality a short-term measure. Hundreds of jobs have been lost at both Thoresby and Kellingley. UK Coal told me this week that, with the help of the Minister’s officials, it will submit an application for state aid clearance to his office by the end of next month. Given how pressing this situation is, will the Minister now give the House an absolute and clear commitment that he will ensure that his Department will reflect and decide on the merits of that application, and on whether to submit it to the European Commission for approval before the dissolution of Parliament?

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course I will consider that submission, not least because we and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills put in a huge amount of effort to bring that about. We worked hard to secure a commercial loan to get us over the short-term cash-flow issues and to look at longer-term options. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming this work and for his support. It is good to know that there is support on both sides of the House.

Tata Steel

Debate between Matt Hancock and Tom Greatrex

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

We can support the steel industry, as we have been doing, and ensure that, if there is a transition, we support those affected. The central point, however, is that the best way to secure the jobs that are increasingly available in Stockton and elsewhere in the country—[Interruption.] Unemployment has fallen by almost 30% in Stockton; the hon. Gentleman should look at our economic record in Stockton, because there and elsewhere, there are more jobs available, while, nationally, unemployment is falling at a record rate. [Interruption.] Opposition Members might want to close their minds to the success of the Government’s economic record, but their voters who have jobs and who can therefore provide for their families do not close their minds to it; their livelihoods are enhanced by the support we have given.

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

I hope the Minister will return to the issue at hand, because the Clydebridge plant in my constituency has a proud industrial heritage, and could have—and should have—a great future as well. I want to take him back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) made about procurement. The Minister said that he would not rest, so may I suggest one direction in which his activities could take him to ensure a proper, co-ordinated approach to procurement? The nationalists are not here, but recently we had the announcement of a Forth bridge crossing in Scotland, and initially it was announced that steel from China, not Scotland, would be used. Will his Department and the devolved Administration, where they are responsible, ensure that as far as possible UK steel is used for UK products?

[Matthew Hancock]

That is an absolutely clear and direct statement that we can support. Where possible—a qualifier that I notice the hon. Gentleman used—we should ensure that we support the use of UK products. Of course, transport is a devolved matter, so I cannot take personal responsibility for decisions about bridges in Scotland. Nevertheless, making sure that we support the UK steel industry is, as I have demonstrated, a matter we take extremely seriously. I would be keen to work with the hon. Gentleman on ensuring that we have a bright long-term future for UK steel and support all those involved in the steel industry, as we have to date.

Apprenticeships

Debate between Matt Hancock and Tom Greatrex

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

National apprenticeship week is all about celebrating exactly the sort of people my hon. Friend mentions.

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

Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), will the Minister reiterate the importance of ensuring proper awareness of apprenticeships in schools and beyond as an alternative? That is a recommendation of the Richard review, and it is vital if we are to see the take-up of apprenticeships and for them to be taken seriously.

[Matthew Hancock]

The new norm set out by the Prime Minister—that young people go into either an apprenticeship or university—is an important step. On the implementation of schools’ statutory duties, Ofsted has said that that will be a priority in how it assesses schools, and that is important. Some schools do brilliantly, but I want all of them to come up to scratch.