Trident: Test Firing

Debate between Michael Fallon and Caroline Lucas

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I understand why my hon. Friend asks that question, but I am afraid that I have to say to him that it takes us into the detail of the operation of the nuclear deterrent and I am not going there.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Following on from that, the Government continually refer to Trident as the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent, yet the missile involved in the malfunction was designed, manufactured and owned by the US, with a US guidance system and leasing arrangements. It is not an operational issue to tell us whether the Secretary of State has known that the malfunction last year was reported at the time to the US President, nor whether the new President has been briefed about it, and nor who decided to cover it up—the UK Government or the US.

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Let me be very clear about this: our Trident nuclear deterrent is completely operationally independent of the United States. In our country, only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of these weapons, even if they are employed as part of an overall NATO response.

Counter-ISIL Coalition Strategy

Debate between Michael Fallon and Caroline Lucas

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend brings his very direct military experience to our debates, and I absolutely agree with him.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that so-called IS actively wants war? Its core message is to present itself as the guardian of Islam under crusader attack. That is a pernicious but effective message. Stepping up our involvement in air strikes reinforces that narrative, even if we stop short of being involved in a ground war. Moreover, it is likely to lead to more civilian casualties. Will he tell us how many civilian casualties there have been so far as a result of US-led air strikes?

[Michael Fallon]

I can certainly write to the hon. Lady on the latter point. Our rules of engagement only agree operations where the capacity for civilian casualties is minimised. I hope she is not suggesting to the House that we should take no action in Iraq or in Syria against ISIL. This is an evil organisation that has committed terrorist outrages on the streets of western Europe and on our own streets. It inspired an attack in the past couple of weeks in which 30 of our citizens were murdered.

Trident Renewal

Debate between Michael Fallon and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

Let me assure my hon. Friend, in response to his first point, that we are not planning to make future deals of any kind with the Liberal Democrats. On the contrary, we hope to be returned in May with an absolute majority that will restore defence policy to the hands of a Conservative Government. As for my hon. Friend’s first point, he is entirely right to draw attention to the absurdity of an unarmed submarine, perhaps several hundred miles from its base, asking our enemies to hold off for a time while it returns to be kitted out with missiles before heading off on patrol again. That is an absurd policy, and we rather look forward to hearing the Liberal Democrat spokesman trying to justify it.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Secretary of State return to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), and pursue the logic of his argument? If the Secretary of State believes that nuclear weapons are so essential to our security, will he tell us whether he agrees that it is legitimate and logical for every country in the world to seek to apply them? Yes or no?

[Michael Fallon]

I do not think that that logic follows at all, but I am about to turn to the issue of disarmament—which has been quite fairly raised—and our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.

Let me be clear: we hope never to use nuclear weapons, but to go on delivering a deterrent effect. However, we also share the vision of a world that is without nuclear weapons, achieved through multilateral disarmament. Retaining a nuclear deterrent and seeking to create the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons are not mutually exclusive options. Indeed, I am happy to announce that the Government have now met their 2010 strategic defence review commitment to reduce the number of deployed warheads on each submarine from 48 to 40, and that the total number of operationally available warheads has therefore been reduced to 120. Unfortunately, those reductions have not encouraged other states seeking a nuclear weapons capability to forgo their attempts; nor have they encouraged some other states that already possess nuclear weapons to follow our example. It is our conclusion that it would be rash further to disarm unilaterally while the capability to threaten us remains.

We ascribe the utmost importance to avoiding any use of nuclear weapons, to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon technology, and to keeping nuclear weapons safe and secure. We are working hard to ensure that the forthcoming review conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—which is the cornerstone of global efforts to prevent the spread of those weapons—is successful, and next month we will host a conference in London for the five nuclear non-proliferation treaty states.

As I have said from the outset, the first duty of any Government is to ensure the security of the nation, its people and our vital interests. Defending the nation has always been challenging, and never more so than in a nuclear age. It was complex in the first nuclear age of cold war certainties, and it has become even more complex in this second nuclear age, when the problems of proliferation have become sharper and the emergence of new nuclear states has become a reality. We are now in an age of uncertainty and confrontation. History teaches us that the defence of this country means being ready for the unexpected, and that means a full-time nuclear deterrent—not one that clocks off for weeks or months at a time, or one that patrols pointlessly. The need for the nuclear deterrent is no less now than it has ever been, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Fallon and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I can certainly confirm that hydraulic fracturing is a well-established technique. It has been used the world over. We also have experience of onshore drilling in this country for nearly 100 years now, since the end of the first world war, and hydraulic fracturing will be permitted only if it is safe not only for those involved but for the environment and the local community.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

On Tuesday the Prime Minister said people objecting to shale gas on climate grounds are irrational, yet climate scientist experts and investors all warn that the vast majority of existing fossil fuel reserves must remain underground—they are unburnable if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change—and just today we hear of the BP report that shale gas will not help cut emissions and that essentially fuel switching does not make a difference as coal just gets exported and is emitted elsewhere. In the light of that, will the Minister tell us whether he agrees with the Prime Minister: does he think climate scientists are irrational as well?

[Michael Fallon]

I think it is wise for all members of the Government to agree with the Prime Minister. Shale gas is one of the greener fossil fuels, and the hon. Lady certainly ought to support its extraction rather than that of coal. We need to reduce our dependence on volatile wholesale international prices for gas and oil, and we need more home-grown energy here under our own control.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Fallon and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I certainly undertake to do that. I have seen my hon. Friend’s letter, signed by several colleagues, and I have also written this week to all Members setting out the benefits of assisted area status and explaining the process and timetable for revising the map for the period 2014-2020.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

16. What steps he is taking to promote provision of apprenticeships.

Royal Mail

Debate between Michael Fallon and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

Let me reassure my hon. Friend absolutely that there are no deal bonuses for the senior management as part of the share sale. The protection for the consumer has been laid down by the House in the Postal Services Act 2011, which he will recall—I hope—voting for two years ago. The regulation is set out there and the price of the stamp will continue to be capped by the regulator.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does not the Government’s insistence on flogging off Royal Mail demonstrate their pursuit of ideology rather than evidence, given that Royal Mail is doing pretty well and is in profit? Will the Minister guarantee that profits following the sell-off will be invested in what is good for Britain, rather than what is good for a handful of shareholders?

[Michael Fallon]

There will be many more than a handful of shareholders; I hope that Royal Mail will have millions of owners in the future. Let me absolutely reassure the hon. Lady on one part of her question: there will be continuing regulation of the price of the stamp by the regulator and the universal service will continue to be protected. Neither will change with the change in ownership.

UK Shale Gas

Debate between Michael Fallon and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 18th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

I, too, thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for starting this debate, and all those who have contributed to it. For those of us who were here on Tuesday, this has been a slightly livelier debate, but none the worse for that. I will try to set some context, say more about the way in which the industry is being regulated, deal with some of the myths, and then turn to some of the specific questions and worries that have been expressed. I hope that colleagues will bear with me.

I start by saying that oil and gas are vital for our economy. About three quarters of our current energy demand is met by oil and gas. Even as we move to lower-carbon sources, which we all want to do, 70% of the primary energy we consume here will come from oil and gas by 2020. They are a vital part of our economy and will remain so for some decades to come, even as we move to a low-carbon economy.

Before I deal with some of the specific questions, let me debunk some of the myths about shale gas: that it is a recent technology, that it is new technology, and that accelerating its exploration involves increasing the risks. Let me take those three myths in turn. The first is that onshore oil and gas production began recently. In fact, we have been exploiting oil and gas onshore for nearly 100 years.

The first production well was drilled onshore in 1919 at Hardstoft in Derbyshire. Since then more than 2,100 conventional wells have been drilled, and onshore production continues to take place throughout our country from the south of England up to Scotland. Just last week, I visited IGas operations in the South Downs national park in Sussex, which is a very good example of how oil and gas operations can work even in the most sensitive environments. We have nearly a century of experience of oil and gas production with no history of chemical spills or gas leaks comparable with the experience in the United States. During that century, we have put in place robust regulation to ensure that oil and gas operations are safe for people and the environment. Given that century of onshore exploration and the expertise and robust supply chains that exist as a result of extraction in the North sea, we are very well placed as a country to make the right decisions about shale.

The second myth is that fracking is new. It is not. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said, some 2.5 million hydraulic fracturing operations have been performed at oil and gas wells worldwide. It is thought that as of 2010 around 60% of all new oil and gas wells are hydraulically fractured. Some 27,000 wells were drilled in the United States in 2011 and most of them were fracked. Even here, that has been happening in some form for the past 60 years. We have already had some 200 wells fracked in this country. With all that activity, there is still no confirmed evidence of contamination of aquifers caused by fracking.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Fallon]

If the hon. Lady will excuse me, I will not give way.

The United States has felt the great difference that shale gas can make. It has reinvigorated the economy, gas prices have halved, reducing costs for industry and consumers, and billions of dollars of new investment and thousands of jobs have been created. Nations across the globe, including India and China, are looking in on that boom and joining in. We must start to think seriously about shale. We must get on and explore the resources that are there and understand the potential, to see whether shale gas can be extracted here as economically and as technically efficiently as it has been in the United States.

The third myth I must deal with is that we are somehow accelerating shale gas and that that means increasing the risk. Conditions vary from country to country, of course, and it is already clear that the shape and development of the industry here will be significantly different from that in the United States. We have the advantage of learning from experience in the United States, but we are, as the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said, a much more densely populated country, which has implications for where and how we can drill. The geology of our shale, as has been said, is much thicker in some areas, but we are committed to ensuring that the industry can prosper here if the conditions are right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

I will certainly consider that suggestion, and if I may, I will write to my hon. Friend about it.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion also asked me about the differences in well designs between operations here and in the United States and about the possibility that we might have methane leaks on the scale that we have seen in Pennsylvania. I visited the United States to talk to experts, and I am aware that the standard of environmental regulation has varied widely across the different states of America. They do not have the overall, national regulatory system that we have. Practices appear to have been tolerated in some states that would not be acceptable in others.

I understand that the repertoire of well design technology is essentially the same as in the United States, but the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom is quite different. Here, we have a national regulator—the Health and Safety Executive—which will require a full review of well design and construction by an independent competent person. I should point out to the hon. Lady that the Royal Academy of Engineering commented that that was a highly valuable feature of the United Kingdom’s system. We can certainly learn from the experience in the United States, but I want to emphasise to her that we start from a position of having what the United States did not have—a system of national regulation.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Minister has referenced, now and at the beginning of his winding-up speech, the fact that our regulations are essentially much stronger. In that respect, I wonder why he would think that it is all right, perhaps, that Britain’s offshore rigs and platforms have leaked oils or other chemicals into the North sea on 55 occasions in the last month alone, according to the figures from DECC. The idea that our drilling regulations generally are somehow much better than those elsewhere is more questionable than he suggests.

The Minister also spoke earlier about the number of countries that are falling over themselves now to go down the fracking route. He did not talk about countries such as France, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Austria, the Republic of Ireland, Spain, Denmark and Germany, all of which have full or partial bans or moratoriums on fracking. That gives a slightly different picture.

Finally—this was one of the key questions that I asked the Minister—why have the planning guidelines been delayed; what does “very soon” mean; and if he is seriously genuinely concerned about consultation with local people, why are those planning guidelines not open to some discussion with the communities?

[Michael Fallon]

I am coming to the point about planning guidance—I was due to do that—if the hon. Lady can contain herself, but first let me deal with the point about the North sea.

[Caroline Lucas]

Honestly!

[Michael Fallon]

I was coming to the point about planning guidance. The hon. Lady has somehow suggested that I was not or that I had missed it. Let us just deal with her slur on the North sea. The North sea has one of the most extensive safety regimes in the world. Of course, we have learned from the accident on Piper Alpha, which sadly took place 25 years ago this month. Of course we have learned from that, but if she compares operations in the North sea with operations in other seas right around the world, she will see that we have one of the best and safest regimes there is. The proof of that is precisely the fact that the incidents that she referred to have to be reported to the Heath and Safety Executive, which is at present in Aberdeen. They have to be monitored; explanations are required from those involved. I think that it is rather remiss of the hon. Lady to try to suggest somehow that there is laxity in our regime in the North sea.

[Caroline Lucas]

On that point—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

The hon. Lady raised two other questions in her last intervention, but I will give way if she wants to intervene again.

[Caroline Lucas]

I should like to intervene again, first to say to you, Mr Amess, that I think that this is yet another example of the kind of patronising tone that we hear again and again from Government Members, particularly towards women in this Chamber, and I absolutely deplore it. Secondly, and more to the point of the debate, the Minister says that I am casting a slur on the North sea somehow. The facts are that there have been 55 leaks in the last month. Is he or is he not comfortable with that fact?

[Mr David Amess (in the Chair)]

Order. This is a very warm afternoon. I just appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to bear that in mind. We are the mother of all Parliaments. Let us continue to have a civilised debate, but obviously I have heard what has been said.

Energy Bill

Debate between Michael Fallon and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I am sure that those who support my hon. Friend will be grateful for that explanation. The quotation I have seems pretty clear to me, but it is for him to explain it. If he is not so sure any more, why should the rest of us be so sure?

I would say to my hon. Friends that they should let the Opposition, as they always will, be opportunistic. Let the Opposition please the lobbyists by suddenly supporting a target that they never endorsed in 13 years in power. I ask those of us here who share the responsibility of government to be a little more careful not to risk higher bills now for our hard-pressed industries and constituents, not to force out generating plants before we have the new investment that the Bill will deliver and, above all, not to drive up costs for those industries struggling to compete against lower energy costs abroad.

Let us have economic and industrial policy that is coherent, and energy policy by design, not decarbonisation by dogma or by default, which can only drive our industries offshore. There is a better way forward, and it is in the Bill. Let us be the first Government ever to enable a legally binding target to be set at the right time: when we set the fifth carbon budget in 2016. We can then better assess the real prospects and costs of carbon capture and storage; properly measure what is happening to the whole economy; and better judge the transition to a greener future against the costs that our consumers and businesses must bear. I urge all my hon. Friends not to rely on blind faith, but on the practical steps that we are taking in the Bill to decarbonise our economy while ensuring security of supply at least cost to our constituents.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

There are many reasons to support the decarbonisation amendments, and many hon. Members—most recently the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who is just leaving the Chamber—have set them out with great expertise and eloquence. From a security perspective, I want to underline that the stakes could hardly be higher. It is clear that those who will suffer the most harm and hardship from the impacts of climate change are often the poorest and most vulnerable, here in the UK and globally—those who have contributed the least to the problem. In that respect, this crisis is not unlike the banking crisis.

As many business leaders and experts such as Lord Stern have said, there is no business as usual at all in a 3° or 4° warmer world. A couple of years ago, at the launch of the UK’s climate adaptation plan, the big idea was managing the unavoidable and avoiding the unmanageable. “Avoiding the unmanageable” means keeping global temperature rises below 2°. For years, that line in the sand has been recognised by the UK and most other Governments, and enshrined in legal documents under the auspices of the United Nations framework convention on climate change and the G8. That is the basis for the UK’s Climate Change Act 2008, and our carbon budgets, which the policies in the Bill will, or perhaps will not, deliver. Internationally, citizens and Governments of low-lying island states risk their entire nation being literally wiped off the face of the map, even with a 2° rise.

Energy Bill

Debate between Michael Fallon and Caroline Lucas

Monday 3rd June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the Minister agree, however, that the Government’s position on nuclear ought to be guided by the coalition agreement, which clearly stated that new nuclear should “receive no public subsidy”? Is he not acting rather like Humpty Dumpty in “Through the Looking Glass”, in that he is making words mean what he wants them to mean? Subsidy means giving extra money to that technology; it does not matter that he is also giving subsidies to renewables. He seems to be arguing that it is not a subsidy if it is being given to renewables and to nuclear, but it is still a subsidy. Will he not recognise that and stick to the line in his own coalition agreement?

[Michael Fallon]

Of course I stick to the line. On this side of the House we all stick to the terms of the coalition agreement, and it is important that we keep doing that. I do not see any reference in the Bill to the word “subsidy”. When the hon. Lady sees the terms of any contract that might be concluded with EDF for Hinkley, or indeed with Horizon Hitachi for the next two stations, she will see that the word “subsidy” is not involved.

Amendment 25 would prohibit the Government from underwriting, or providing in investment contracts, guarantees to cover nuclear construction costs. Let me reassure the House, if there is a concern about construction cost overruns, that such overruns for new nuclear will be borne by the developer. There are two scenarios, however, in which it might be reasonable for certain construction risks to be shared. They include cases involving less mature technologies such as carbon capture and storage, reflecting the high level of uncertainty around those construction costs, and those relating to certain events outside a developer’s control, such as specified change in law events. An example could involve a law that specifically discriminated against nuclear.

More widely, I can assure the House that we will only sign a contract in respect of Hinkley that is fair, affordable and represents clear value for money for consumers. Amendments 26 and 27 would delay the Government’s making CFD regulations relating to nuclear power or signing an investment contract until the National Audit Office had first carried out a value-for-money assessment of nuclear power or the relevant investment contract. It would not be right to hold up the delivery of a major Government programme that is vital for economic growth and jobs across the country until the NAO had undertaken a review. We have already put a significant amount of expert scrutiny into the decision-making process to ensure a robust evidence base, and will be consulting on the draft electricity market reform delivery plan to augment that.

More generally, the major CFD regulations will be consulted on and will be subject to affirmative parliamentary approval. Investment contracts are already subject to close scrutiny by external advisers to ascertain whether they represent value for money. Combined with my earlier commitments and amendments to the Bill, this will ensure transparency of investment contracts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Michael Fallon]

I want to be fair to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), too, but I give way again to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley).

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

It is for Ministers to take these decisions and for Ministers to be accountable to Parliament for them. It is for Parliament to scrutinise the decision taken. I am sure the hon. Lady is not suggesting that Parliament itself should take this decision; in the end, it is for the Executive to take their decisions about investment and infrastructure and for those decisions to be fully accountable to, and scrutinised by, Parliament.

[Caroline Lucas]

I reiterate the point that the hon. Lady has just made because the National Audit Office cannot look at the issue at the key point where we need the information. My wider point is this. The Minister keeps saying that nuclear offers value for money, is fair and affordable and so forth, but how can that possibly be the case when this Government envisage locking taxpayers into a 35-year contract to pay around twice the current market price for power, with the money then going to line the coffers of the French nuclear power station operators?

[Michael Fallon]

I wonder how the hon. Lady seems to have more information about the final details of the contract than I do, as I would suggest to her that I am a little closer to it than she is. When the details are published, she will find that not everything that has appeared in the newspapers is wholly accurate.