Draft Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2015

Debate between Tommy Sheppard and Dominic Grieve
Tuesday 27th October 2015

(9 years ago)

General Committees
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tommy Sheppard Portrait Tommy Sheppard
- Hansard - -

Not with three minutes to go—two minutes, I am sorry. The problem with this process, which is essentially more a chemical than a mechanical process, such as coalmining or conventional oil drilling, is that you have to pump stuff down and get stuff up all the way through the 1,200 metres and there is every chance that leakage could take place and the environment be damaged. Why 1,200 metres? Why not 1,500 metres? Why not a mile? The answer is in the explanatory notes, which talk about a balance between environmental protection and the needs of the industry. That is not good enough to reassure the public.

Dominic Grieve Portrait Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the hon. Gentleman give way, very briefly?

Tommy Sheppard Portrait Tommy Sheppard
- Hansard - -

I am just finishing, but I will give way.

Dominic Grieve Portrait Mr Grieve
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman says he objects to there being a balance, but what is happening up in Scotland when they put up a wind farm? They are having to balance getting the energy from the wind farm with the destruction of the peat land on which it is situated. We are always striking a balance and to argue that we should not do so is to argue that we should do nothing at all.

Tommy Sheppard Portrait Tommy Sheppard
- Hansard - -

I am not entirely sure what that has to do with the debate on this SI. A balance may be struck with wind farming between the turbines and aesthetic judgments of the landscape and various other things, but here we are talking about striking a balance between public safety and environmental protection on one hand, and the needs of the industry on the other. If we want to reassure the public, we should not seek to compromise on those things. We should say that public safety and environmental protection are paramount, and that we will proceed with this technology within that framework. The problem here—unlike in Scotland, where there is a moratorium and the Government are seeking to develop a policy based on evidence—is that the policy appears to have already been decided and the evidence is being bent to fit the policy.