Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-11
Topic: Environment
Tom Greatrex (Labour, Centre-left): 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.