Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the impact of (1) increased fracking and oil and gas extraction
on energy costs for consumers, and (2) the time frame required
for such supplies to come on stream in comparison with renewable
energy capacity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
My Lords, measuring the impact of any specific gas project or
energy costs for consumers is inherently complex. The UK is not
isolated from international markets. Shale gas can also support
energy security. Renewable energy sources have a wide range of
development timeframes. The process of extracting onshore shale
gas can be relatively rapid and scalable but will always depend
on specific development factors.
(GP)
I thank the Minister for his reply; I will not call it an Answer.
I am sure that he is extremely embarrassed by his Government’s
ditching of one of their election promises not to frack any more.
I would like a yes or no answer to a question. If local
people—and perhaps even the local council—are against fracking in
their area, as for example is the Tory-led council in East
Riding, will the Government accept that and allow no fracking in
their area?
(Con)
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have said that
local support for fracking projects is very important. It is one
of the factors that we will take into account.
(Con)
My Lords, more than a million shale wells have been drilled in
North America and elsewhere. There is no record of a single
building having been shaken down by the occasional microtremors,
nor of a single person being poisoned by allegedly contaminated
aquifers. Is not the scaremongering of the anti-frackers as bad
as that of the anti-vaxxers? Should it not be treated
similarly?
(Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. A number of scare
stories have been circulating, although I would gently point out
that many parts of America are much less densely populated than
many parts of the UK.
(LD)
My Lords, it is well understood that fracking will take some time
to develop, and it is more expensive than many renewables. As an
alternative, solar is renewable, a lot cheaper and can be
implemented much more quickly. Can the Government guarantee that
they will not restrict further the rollout of solar in the
country during the next couple of years?
(Con)
Not only can I guarantee that but we will be expanding renewables
production. We need to do both. We need to roll out renewables,
which have a good track record. They are relatively cheap, but
they are intermittent—it is no good telling people that they can
keep their lights on for only 60% of the time. The real watchword
is that we need diversity of supply. We need more renewables; we
need gas; we need nuclear; we need biomass production—we need all
of them.
(CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests. I welcome the Government’s
movement on the planning regime for onshore wind. I also endorse
the need to change the illogical charging regime for electricity
generation which was announced today. How will the Government
ensure that funding for research and investment in renewables is
maintained, given the effective windfall tax on renewables that
is being introduced, when the detrimental effect on investment in
research on oil and gas was the reason for not having a windfall
tax on those industries?
(Con)
I agree with the first part of the question from the noble
Baroness, but we do have a windfall tax on oil and gas producers:
the energy price profits levy was announced earlier in the year.
We do not propose a windfall tax on renewables. I welcome her
support for increased supplies of wind energy.
(Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister’s previous answer mean that the
suggestion that the local people will have a say is meaningless,
because the Government will overrule them?
(Con)
No, that is not what I said—if the noble Lord would care to
consult Hansard. I said that local support is extremely
important. It is one of the factors that we will be looking to
see demonstrated before any hydraulic fracturing licences are
issued.
(Con)
My Lords, as a former Member of the European Parliament for North
West England, and for many months in this House, even before the
invasion of Ukraine, I have been a vocal supporter of the
reintroduction of shale gas extraction in the Bowland fields in
Lancashire. The protesters at the time generally were not those
who lived there, but people who came from outside. We are also
now aware of the fearmongering propaganda against fracking across
Europe and the UK, which emanated from Russia. Can my noble
friend the Minister reassure this House that the process will go
ahead?
(Con)
I know that my noble friend has been a long-standing supporter of
fracking. There are a lot of steps to go through. There could be
potential for large amounts of shale gas. We do not yet know.
Local planning will still need to happen, the licences will need
to be issued, the Secretary of State will want to be reassured
that it is still safe in operation et cetera, but it is certainly
a potential that we are looking at.
(PC)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that the
Government of Wales have banned fracking, not just on the
question of environmental impact in the conventional sense but
because of the uncertainty of the underground workings in many of
the coalfields and other mineral areas of Wales. In those
circumstances, in the context of the possibility of fracking in
west Cheshire and the Wirral, and the uncertainty about many of
the underground tunnels in the industrial area of Flintshire, can
he ensure that there is close co-operation and discussion with
the Government of Wales before any consent is given on the
eastern side of the border?
(Con)
The Welsh Government are of course responsible for policies,
planning et cetera in Wales, and the British Government are
responsible for that in England.
(Lab)
My Lords, many of the issues that we are discussing today could
be covered in the Energy Bill. What has happened to it?
(Con)
Well, we have had some extensive debates, as the noble Baroness
knows. We had an excellent Second Reading and two days in
Committee. I am sure that we will want to look at when that
returns to the House.
(CB)
My Lords, do the Government accept that public and community
support for fracking projects and others such as onshore wind
could be greatly increased if it was made easier—perhaps even
mandated—for companies to share the revenue directly with local
consumers in the environment of the projects where they are
either fracked or where the wind turbines go up?
(Con)
The noble Lord speaks a great deal of sense. They are eminently
sensible suggestions and of course local communities will want to
feel the benefit of any procedures that they consent to in their
areas.
(Con)
My Lords, following up that point, does my noble friend agree
that energy from waste is very much the way forward, and will he
ensure that any benefits go to the local community from
electricity generated from waste?
(Con)
I am happy to agree with my noble friend that energy from waste
is an excellent production technique. There are many successful
energy-from-waste projects; it is another technology that will
make a contribution to our energy supply.
(LD)
My Lords, a short while ago in the Commons, the Prime Minister
stated that fracking would go ahead only where there was
community support, and the Minister has just corroborated that.
Can he categorically state that community support will be gauged
neither by the fracking companies themselves, of which there is a
rumour, nor by Jacob Rees-Mogg’s department, given the debacle of
his consultation on imperial measurements, in which “no” was not
an option?
(Con)
I am happy to hear from the noble Baroness the great news that
the Prime Minister agrees with me and has said the same thing,
which is always good for a Minister to hear. However, the reality
is that the issuing of hydraulic fracturing consents is a matter
for BEIS and the Secretary of State for BEIS.
(Lab)
My Lords, as many speakers have alluded to, there is little
evidence to suggest that fracking is the answer to the current
energy crisis. However, reducing our collective energy demand
would improve energy security and lower prices. Why was the
Government-led campaign to encourage household energy savings
scrapped?
(Con)
If I can just correct the noble Lord: fracking is not the only
answer; it is one of the potential answers to energy security. As
I said earlier, we need a diverse range of supply. I remind the
House that while we have our own domestic supplies of gas, we
still import a considerable amount of very carbon-intensive LNG.
If fracking gas—shale gas—can replace some of that, then that is
a net carbon saving.
With regard to information, the Government will continue to
promote all our energy efficiency schemes. We will continue to
provide information to consumers on ways that energy can be saved
and, more importantly, on how they can reduce their bills. There
is one pre-eminent technology that everybody should do, which is
to turn down the flow temperature of your condensing boiler: you
will end up with the same temperature, the boiler will run much
more efficiently, and you will save 8% to 10% on your gas bills.
