Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD) I beg to move, That this House
has considered local consent for fracking. It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank colleagues who
have sponsored the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member
for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who joins me here. I was grateful to
receive cross-party support for my application from colleagues from
six different parties, on both sides of the House, but it is a
little...Request free trial
(North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered local consent for fracking.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I
thank colleagues who have sponsored the debate, particularly my
hon. Friend the Member for Bath (), who joins me here. I was
grateful to receive cross-party support for my application from
colleagues from six different parties, on both sides of the
House, but it is a little disappointing that nobody from the
Government Benches has joined us today.
I made the application for the debate to the Backbench Business
Committee some six weeks—and one Prime Minister—ago, at a time
when the Government had lifted the moratorium on fracking,
claiming that it was necessary to increase our domestic fossil
fuel output to cut costs and increase energy security.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy ()
I very much welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Lady on
securing it. I just want to make it clear that there is somebody
from the Government Front Bench here: I am sitting here and
listening carefully to everything she says.
I thank the Minister for that intervention, but I was referring
to Back Benchers in my previous comment.
The former Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr
Rees-Mogg), argued that fracking would only happen with local
consent, but repeatedly declined to outline the detail on how
consent might be obtained and whether it was synonymous with
compensation. As I have said before, compensation is not consent,
and I firmly believe that affected communities would oppose
fracking in their area.
Since then, the current Prime Minister has U-turned on that
U-turn. That is welcome, but with much of the Government’s 2019
manifesto abandoned, the Prime Minister pledging his own support
for fracking over the summer and the Conservatives having voted
to allow fracking just one month ago, I believe it is worthwhile
obtaining some clarification from the Minister on the matter. I
ask him to guarantee that fracking without consent is never
forced on our communities, either in my constituency or anywhere
else in Britain. We must prevent the Government from making yet
another U-turn.
There is no mandate for fracking. It was outlawed in the
manifesto of every major party in 2019 and only a tiny minority
appear to believe that there is a benefit. The Liberal Democrat
manifesto mentions “banning fracking for good.” “Permanently ban
fracking”—the Labour party manifesto. The Conservative manifesto
states,
“We will not support fracking”,
and the Green party manifesto reads
“Ban fracking, and other unconventional forms of fossil fuel
extraction”.
Some 90% of the electorate voted for one of those parties. It is
clear that people do not want fracking, and there are very good
reasons why.
Britain cannot produce enough gas from fracking to reduce the
global gas price, so it will not reduce our energy bills,
especially when electricity from renewable sources is the
cheapest form of energy we can produce. Investing in
renewables—not only the cheapest, but the cleanest form of
energy—is the best way to bring down our bills and our carbon
emissions. As COP27 meets in Sharm El Sheikh and the lack of
progress on the climate emergency is brought to international
attention, it would be disastrous for the UK to start novel types
of fossil fuel extraction. We need to find ways to keep fossil
fuels in the ground, not waste effort looking for ever more
inventive ways of extracting them.
The fundamental scientific evidence surrounding fracking and its
safety has not changed either. Fracking is still unsafe and
unproven. Last month the British Geological Survey refused to
endorse fracking as a safe practice in its report for the
Government. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee
has previously warned that fracking poses a “risk to groundwater”
and a
“risk of polluting surface water”,
and that the need for considerable quantities of water for
fracking
“could pose localised risks to water supplies”.
This follows one of the driest summers ever; we cannot afford to
take the risk.
Research commissioned by the Liberal Democrats has revealed that
fracking caused 192 earthquakes in 182 days at one active site in
the UK. That is more than one a day. A 2.9 magnitude earthquake
was recorded near Cuadrilla’s site near Blackpool in 2019.
Residents reported their shock at houses being shaken for two to
three seconds. A report by the Oil and Gas Authority said it was
not possible to predict the probability or size of tremors caused
by the practice, so people do not want fracking for good reason.
When they have had the opportunity to express their opposition,
they have done so in numbers.
When fracking was last proposed at Dudleston Heath— a small
village near Ellesmere in my constituency—a huge number of
residents rapidly organised opposition to the proposed site. One
constituent who led the protest said that they
“crammed about 300 people into the village hall”
in a public meeting about fracking. At the end of the meeting, a
show of hands was requested, and he reported that
“everyone bar one person was against”
fracking.
Lovely as they are, I doubt whether the views of people in
Dudleston Heath and Criftins are unique, and every MP in a
potentially impacted area has had countless emails from
constituents opposing the plans. Furthermore, the huge number of
well-organised grassroots community groups that have cropped up
across the country is evidence of a groundswell of opposition to
the fracking plans.
We also saw well-organised opposition on a national level in the
well-publicised campaigns by organisations such as the Campaign
to Protect Rural England and Friends of the Earth, signalling the
depth of support among many who do not live anywhere near one of
the proposed sites.
In North Shropshire, a licence exists covering a small area of
land by the Cheshire border, but whose impact zone extends to the
market towns of Whitchurch and Market Drayton. There was huge
concern in October when the then Secretary of State for Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for North
East Somerset, said in response to an urgent question that
“the moratorium on the extraction of shale gas is being
lifted”.
He also said, in response to a question from me:
“Compensation and consent become two sides of the same coin.
People will be able to negotiate the level of compensation and it
will be a matter for the companies to try and ensure widespread
consent by offering a compensation package that is
attractive.”—[Official Report, 22 September 2022; Vol. 719, c.
790-95.]
I find the suggestion that anyone will agree to something if they
are paid enough slightly odd, although perhaps I am being a
little idealistic, but I also believe that if the Conservatives
refuse to impose an outright ban on fracking, a valid consent
process must be put in place now to protect local communities in
the event that the moratorium is lifted in future.
I propose a local referendum process—not just for those in the
area covered by the fracking licence, but for the people living
in the surrounding impact zone. When a council was approached for
planning permission, it would have to gain the express consent of
those in the affected areas before granting such permission. That
should follow a period in which the full facts of the impact on
the area were not only publicly available, but actively
communicated to those affected. The planning inspector should not
be able to overrule the decision reached in the local referendum
and the subsequent council planning committee decision.
Local councils have been impacted by the cost of living crisis
and are struggling to balance their budgets as it is, with many
reporting financial distress, so the cost of administering those
public information campaigns and subsequent referendums should
not fall on the local council, or indeed the local taxpayer, but
should be met by the company making the planning application. An
application to exploit the resources of the British countryside
should in no way be foisted on the taxpayer, but should be met by
the companies that are making huge profits as a result of the
global gas price. Will the Minister comment specifically on those
suggestions for safeguarding communities that could be impacted
by fracking in the event of a further Government U-turn?
Local communities affected by fracking have already expressed
their opposition to the lifting of the moratorium; so, too, have
the vast majority of the British people, who in 2019 voted for
parties that opposed fracking in some form or another. Fracking
simply will not bring down our energy bills, and if we are to
address the energy problems the country faces, we must rapidly
invest in renewable energy sources. The science has not changed
either, and fracking is just as unsafe and unreliable as it was
three years ago. I would welcome the Government’s confirmation of
that point.
Given that the Conservative moratorium has been demonstrated to
be fragile and temporary in nature, and that the Prime Minister
pledged to overturn it in the summer leadership campaign, and
given that Conservative MPs voted in favour of lifting the
moratorium only a month ago, it is essential that a watertight
process of local consent be put in place. If Conservative MPs
will not pledge to honour their manifesto commitment and keep the
ban on fracking, we must safeguard our communities from this
unnecessary, disruptive and dangerous practice.
9.40am
(Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Paisley. You are a friend and colleague, but also a very
impartial Chair. Everybody is impartial, by the way, but you are
impartial in giving me the same chance as everybody else and not
a better chance—that is the point I am trying to make.
In the time that the hon. Member for North Shropshire () has been in the House, she
has shown that she looks after and tries hard for her
constituents. Today she has clearly set the scene for the
fracking debate in her constituency and across the whole United
Kingdom.
I had hoped that there would be more Members here; I suppose that
the debate has moved on because the Government have clarified
their position. We are talking about something that still scares
and alarms people, and I will share my perspective. I agree with
the views of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, and I know she
will go above and beyond to fight for her constituents on the
issue, as she does vocally in the main Chamber and has today in
Westminster Hall.
Some have seen fracking as a way to instil our self-sufficiency.
I look forward to hearing the views of others, including the
Minister. I am aware of a couple of fracking incidents in
Northern Ireland, of which my hon. Friend the Member for East
Londonderry (Mr Campbell) will also be aware. The Democratic
Unionist party has taken a strong stance on the issue by opposing
fracking across Northern Ireland. One example is Belcoo in
Fermanagh, where the opposition of local people was clear, and
fracking has therefore moved no further. I think there might also
have been a fracking application near Larne; you might have been
at the same meeting, Mr Paisley. That is my recollection,
although I am not sure whether it is entirely accurate, but,
again, that application never went anywhere. I am very clear
where we are and what we hope to achieve in this debate.
On local consent for fracking, I cannot agree more with the hon.
Member for North Shropshire, who set the scene admirably. If
fracking is to go ahead, the principle of consent goes without
saying. The Government have committed to ensuring that local
people will have the final say on what happens. I am reassured by
that; the people I have spoken to are clear that they do not want
it in their areas, and therefore it will never happen. I am sure
the Minister will confirm that. I also very much look forward to
the contribution of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for
Bristol East (), who is a vocal
spokesperson on the issue. I know that her comments will go along
the lines of other Members’.
Before 2019 the Government required operators to obtain consent
from the Secretary of State prior to commencing drilling or
operations. That would be approved only if local planning
authorities granted a petrol licence and environmental permits,
which meant that local people always had input into the planning
application process—but they did not have the last word, which is
why I welcome what the Government have said. Fracking requires
rigorous paperwork, but the most important aspect is the local
consent of communities who would be directly impacted by
fracking. I have received large numbers of emails and letters on
the matter from all parts of the United Kingdom. We are in the
mother of Parliaments, so we meet lots of people from across the
great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and
they tell me the same thing: they are concerned about
fracking.
Mr (East Londonderry)
(DUP)
My hon. Friend touches on the two key issues: the safety of any
extraction process and local consent. Does he agree that if any
extraction method, whatever it might be, falls on those two
bases, no Government should permit it to proceed?
I fully and wholeheartedly agree. The hon. Member for North
Shropshire referred to safety and danger in her contribution,
which was significant. That cannot be ignored, and I hope to
comment on it. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry is
absolutely right about where we are; the DUP has opposing
fracking in its manifesto for Northern Ireland.
For the family who live in their ancestors’ home, with great
memories and familial traditions, to be told that their home may
be affected will not be welcome news. If there is any possibility
of hydraulic fracturing taking place, families at risk of facing
housing damage must be offered compensation of the equivalent
value of their property, to give them the option to move. There
are obvious concerns about the impact of fracking on properties
and the surroundings.
It is important that the full list of implications and possible
risks is given to any property area to let people know the “what
ifs”. The Truss Administration did not clarify what was meant by
“local consent”. Would it involve a vote, numerous consultations,
or financial incentives from larger energy companies? We and,
most importantly, our constituents are in the dark. People are
worried about subsidence, sinkholes, rates, energy prices, and
the value of their house dropping, so when it comes to fracking
issues, locals must have the last say.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire and my hon. Friend the
Member for East Londonderry referred to safety and danger, and I
think many people looking at fracking see the dangers very
clearly. With that in mind, I would feel reassured if the last
word—the only word that really matters—went to locals in the form
of local consent, and if that were in any legislation the
Government may bring forward. There would need to be clear and
concrete evidence of the benefits of fracking in a particular
area before any decision was made on the possibility of drilling,
and the consent principle has to be key to that.
There needs to be intense focus on the planning system to ensure
that a fracking development is an acceptable use of the land in
question, as there may be better uses for that land. There is big
demand for housing, especially social housing, here on the
mainland and across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is where the money should be spent
and the focus should be.
Concerns have been expressed that it will be down to the fracking
companies to assess local community consent. I do not think that
it should be. I cannot agree with fracking companies assessing
local community consent; there has to be an independent body,
otherwise there is potential for bias and persuasion. Should it
be deemed that fracking would be beneficial in an area, the local
consent process must be carried out by an independent individual
or body. I therefore seek an assurance from the Minister, for
whom I have the utmost respect. The question is not just whether
there is local consent; if someone is to carry out a survey or
questionnaire, that process must be independent.
There is a range of views and information to assess when coming
to any decision on fracking. First, if there is no hard evidence
that fracking will provide some sort of self-sufficiency to an
area, there is no need for it to be done at all. Secondly, local
communities’ consent should be at the forefront of the discussion
and they should have the last word in any process. I thank the
hon. Member for North Shropshire for ensuring that that is the
case, and it will continue to be the case for the debate on
fracking, whenever it reappears, whether that be in the main
Chamber, here or through questions.
There is a real consensus across the whole United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland to oppose fracking in
principle, but writing into any discussions and legislation local
consent—that local communities get the last and final word—would
give us protection.
9.49am
(Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I
echo the words of the hon. Member for Strangford () about my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire
() being such a powerful
advocate for her local communities in North Shropshire. I thank
her for bringing this crucial and serious debate to the Chamber
today.
When the disastrous and short-lived previous Government announced
that they would lift the moratorium on fracking, they never gave
a single thought to our local communities. They provided no
answer to how they would get local consent. Many people,
including many MPs, were outraged that fracking would be forced
upon them once again. I echo my hon. Friend’s observation that it
is disappointing that there are not more Conservative Back
Benchers here to voice their discontent about the U-turn that the
Government made only a month ago, and to make their
disappointment and outrage known to the Government so that they
will never dare to bring back any such proposals. We can never
rest until fracking is banned.
Fracked fuel is a fossil fuel. Fracking flies in the face of our
net zero commitment. The Government’s own experts said that
seismic activity caused by hydraulic fracking was not safe.
Fracking has been linked to multiple health defects. It is
disgraceful that the Government even considered lifting the ban
and putting the population at risk.
I would like to set the record straight. When the former Business
Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr
Rees-Mogg), so grandly declared that his local community would
welcome fracking, that was not so. There was a petition going
round Bath and North East Somerset asking for a ban on fracking.
Let us put the record straight: local communities in Bath and
North East Somerset did not welcome fracking.
The Government’s flirtation with fracking proves their unserious
approach to climate change and the environment. I am afraid that
will not change under the new Prime Minister. When he was
Chancellor, the Prime Minister introduced a windfall tax
incentivising firms to invest in fossil fuel extraction. As Prime
Minister, he had to be dragged to COP27. Those are not the
actions of someone who will treat the climate emergency with the
urgency it demands.
Investing heavily in renewables is clearly the answer to the UK’s
energy crisis. However, securing local consent is vital, even for
popular solutions such as renewables. Local communities must be
brought on board for the net zero transition; after all, they are
the ones who will have to bear a lot of the costs, host new
infrastructure in their neighbourhoods, and alter their routines
and behaviours. Without that, there is a risk that people will
not welcome or accept the necessary changes. The consequences of
that would make our progress to net zero much lengthier, more
costly and more contested. It would be less inclusive, equitable
and environmentally sustainable.
Local consent is what we Liberal Democrats always ask for. The
most successful net zero projects have local consent. Where
possible, should projects not be undertaken by local people with
a stake in them? Local communities are best placed to provide
detailed knowledge of their local area. They have expert
understanding of how their area functions and what their
communities value.
The Government must remove the shackles from local authorities
and give them the powers and funding they need as partners in
reaching net zero. In Bath and North East Somerset, domestic and
business solar capacity has doubled since our council declared a
climate emergency in 2019. These local initiatives should be
encouraged by the Government but, instead, they are being
restricted by hollowed-out local authority budgets and our
planning laws.
Community energy projects must also be encouraged. They allow
people to purchase clean electricity directly from a local supply
company or co-operative. That ensures that every pound spent on
powering our homes or cars is recycled back into the local
community. Energy projects should be carried by our local
communities, and they are the ones who need to provide consent,
whatever the solutions. Community energy is one of the few tried
and tested means of engaging people in energy systems. In my
constituency, Bath and West Community Energy has installed enough
renewable energy to power nearly 4,500 homes. I take this
opportunity—it is a good opportunity, because we are talking
about local consent and local energy provision—to ask the
Minister again whether he will back the Local Electricity Bill,
which is supported by more than half of MPs across the House.
Achieving local consent is crucial if we are serious about
meeting our net zero targets. Gaining local consent for fracking
was never going to happen. However, local communities
passionately support renewable projects. They just need the
Government to empower them to deliver those projects—and we need
a Government that finally bans fracked fuel, which flies in the
face of our net zero commitments.
9.55am
(Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley, and to see
the Minister. I do not think we have gone head to head across the
Chamber before. It is a little disappointing that the Minister
for Climate, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness
(), is not here, although I
appreciate why he is not. The last time we faced each other in a
fracking debate, which was in the main Chamber, the outcome was
suboptimal from his point of view because it led to chaos and the
resignation of the Prime Minister the next morning. I suspect
that today will be a rather more sedate affair. We cannot expect
that sort of excitement every day, although, given how eventful
politics has been lately, it would not surprise me if something
imploded later.
It is also a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Strangford
(). It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without
him. I think he came down against fracking, but he made a
wide-ranging speech on the issue. The hon. Member for Bath
() was right to say that there
is no support, or very little support, for fracking in Bath and
North East Somerset. I say that as an MP whose constituency
neighbours that of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset
(Mr Rees-Mogg), who said he would be happy to have fracking in
his back garden—his back garden is probably big enough for that.
Beyond that, as the hon. Lady said, there is very little
support.
As I have said, the last time we discussed fracking it was pretty
chaotic. The former Prime Minister made lifting the ban on
fracking a cornerstone of her short-lived Administration. I still
do not see why she did that. It was a 2019 Conservative manifesto
commitment to keep the moratorium unless the science proved
otherwise. The science did not change because the geology did not
change—a recent expert report by the British Geological Survey
said that that was the case—so fracking was still seen as unsafe,
it was clearly incompatible with our climate obligations, and it
was deeply unpopular.
During that debate in the main Chamber, Back-Bench Conservative
MPs came out to declare their opposition to fracking. They did
not vote against it on that occasion, but it was clear that they
were unhappy. If this debate had happened a few weeks ago—I
suspect the application was made back then—this place would have
been teeming with MPs from across the House, including
Conservatives, wanting to make sure that their opposition to
fracking was on the record. I think that now they probably want
the issue to just go away—they want to pretend that the last few
weeks did not happen and that there was never any question of the
ban being lifted—and that is why they are not here today.
Does the hon. Lady agree that we must continue to put pressure on
the Government to end fracking once and for all or it might come
back under the next Government—and who knows when that will come
along?
Exactly. Because it is not clear why the last Prime Minister felt
obliged to lift the ban on fracking, despite all the arguments
against it, we will always have that scintilla of doubt that it
has not completely gone away. There was no logic to her decision,
so—who knows?—perhaps equally illogical decisions will be made in
the future. The current Prime Minister has not embraced the
moratorium on fracking out of any green credentials of his own.
It is clearly an issue of party management. It is very sensible
to reverse the U-turn and go back to the 2019 manifesto, but
during the summer leadership election, he actively supported the
return of fracking in areas where there was local support.
The Prime Minister also came out against solar power. I do not
suppose the Minister is in a position to reply, but I am trying
to find out through parliamentary questions whether there has
been a change to the mooted policy of the previous
Administration—we almost need names for each of the
Administrations, because it gets confusing talking about the
former this and former that—to bring other, less fertile
agricultural land into the “best and most versatile land”
category, meaning a ban on solar on that reclassified land.
Having talked to the National Farmers Union and other farmers, I
hope that that policy has now been reversed. Obviously, we do not
want the entire countryside to be covered with solar panels, but
we do want to see them in the right places. Solar can also be
mixed with farming, as farmers can grow things under solar panels
in some cases. I would like to think that there is now, under
this Administration, more support for solar on our farmland.
I would say that the policy on onshore wind is still unclear, but
actually, when the Prime Minister was pressed on it at Prime
Minister’s questions, it seemed clear that the ban remains.
Considering that there were plans to allow fracking, I cannot see
why onshore wind would be seen as less attractive than that. As I
said, the moratorium on fracking was a 2019 manifesto commitment.
The problem is that there is nothing to stop the Secretary of
State taking unilateral action to lift the moratorium without any
oversight or scrutiny from the House or input from local
communities.
Our energy policy should be decided by what is best to bring down
energy bills, what is best for our energy security and
environment and, of course, whether there is public consent. In
all those cases, it is clear that fracking should not be on the
table. Labour has been clear that we want a full, permanent ban
on fracking, and we want it now. It is unlikely, but, if the
Minister was able to commit to a ban, I am sure that he would
make not just those present but a lot of his Back Benchers
happy.
In the debate on bringing back fracking, it was difficult to work
out what the then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for
North East Somerset—or, indeed, a number of other Ministers—meant
when he said that the Government would allow fracking only if
there was “local consent”. Lots of Government Back Benchers
pressed him during that debate on what exactly that meant and it
has come up on other occasions in the Chamber. Particularly
worryingly, it almost seemed as though it was not really about
asking people whether they consented; it was not a local
referendum or actually going into a community and asking people
if they support fracking. There was quite a lot of talk about
compensation being offered, and it almost sounded as though the
plan was to buy off local people, and perhaps the council that
would issue planning permission, rather than speaking to
individuals who would be affected. That would clearly be
unacceptable. If we were going back to lifting the ban and
allowing fracking—there are so many double negatives in this
debate; we are going round in circles with all the U-turns—what
does the Minister envisage asking for local consent to look
like?
In my contribution, I made the point that it cannot be the energy
companies themselves holding the discussions with local people
because, by their very nature, they will have a bias; it has to
be an independent body or person going door to door collecting
opinions from individuals one to one. In that way, I think a very
clear opinion would be drawn. We almost know the end result, but
that must be the way to do it.
That is the case, is it not? It seems like a futile exercise—I do
not think there is any community in the country that actually
wants fracking to happen—but the hon. Gentleman is quite right
that the energy companies, which have a vested interest in
fracking, cannot be in charge of such an exercise, because it
would be skewed.
If fracking was treated in the same way as this Government have
treated onshore wind, which is a genuinely popular and clean
source of energy, a single local objection could be enough to
sink proposals. It is very easy to stop onshore wind, although,
as we know, the Government currently have a policy not to proceed
with it anyway.
No matter how the Government try to bend the definition of local
consent, the reality is that fracking is deeply unpopular. The
Government’s own polling showed that only 17% of people support
fracking, and I suspect that most of them do not want it in their
backyard. I think there was a Conservative Minister in the Lords
who talked about how fracking was not suitable for the south but
suggested that it would be welcomed up in the “desolate” north. I
suspect some of those 17% want fracking somewhere, but not where
they live.
From the polling on other energy sources, 74% support new onshore
wind, yet the Government are sticking with the ban on it. Some
75% oppose the Government’s banning solar panels on farmland,
but, as I have said, the current Prime Minister still seems very
negative on both of those proposals. My point is that this
Government’s energy policy appears to be inherently biased
towards fossil fuels. The Minister looked slightly shocked at
that, but the Government have just issued 100 new oil and gas
licences: if that is not bias towards fossil fuels, I do not know
what is. Between a ban on onshore wind, lots of scepticism about
solar, issuing licences for oil and gas exploration, and at one
point trying to bring back fracking, I think it is very clear
where the bias lies.
Is this not also a sign that the Government are entirely behind
the curve? When fracking was mooted a decade ago as a transition
fuel, it might have been something that could be considered,
because the legislation at the time was aiming only for 80%
renewable energy by 2050. Since 2018, we have known that we need
to get to 100%, so transition fuels are a complete nonsense. Does
the hon. Lady agree?
I absolutely do agree. Fracking is certainly not greener and, as
well as all the other reasons why we oppose it, it is not a
cheaper source of energy, either.
The Minister for Climate, the right hon. Member for Beverley and
Holderness, tried to gaslight the British public with his recent
claim that fracking is green. He has also tried to say that oil
and gas exploration in the North sea is green because the
alternative is importing it, so we would have the extra costs of
importing from elsewhere. Clearly, the green alternative is
renewables. I would ask the Minister for Climate why, if he was
right to say that fracking is a green option, it is opposed by so
many of his colleagues, including the right hon. Member for
Reading West (), who was the President of
COP26, and the right hon. Member for Kingswood (), who is conducting the net
zero review. Extracting fossil fuels will never be green, and I
hope that the Minister who is here today will make that clear
when he replies to the debate.
Right now, there is immense pressure at COP27 to secure genuinely
ambitious agreements to leave fossil fuels in the ground for
good. Sending a clear message about our commitment to net zero
and the move away from fossil fuels is vital, but the Government
have been sending out such mixed signals—as has been said, the
Prime Minister was not even going to go to COP, and had to be
dragged there. That sends a terrible message about our global
leadership. If our climate commitments are called into question,
how can we expect other people to step up to the plate? It is
time to end any doubts about the UK’s commitment to climate
action. Listening to communities and implementing a permanent ban
on fracking, and bringing back onshore wind and solar, would be a
good start.
10.08am
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy ()
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Paisley, in the absence of the Minister for Climate, my right
hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (), who is dealing with these
very issues at COP27 today. I congratulate the hon. Member for
North Shropshire (); she is a very exciting new
Member of Parliament, and she has done well today in bringing
this issue to the attention of the House.
As somebody who was as concerned as everyone else here that the
very short-lived Administration that took office in September
flirted with the idea of lifting the 2019 Conservative moratorium
on fracking, I am delighted to say that that policy has very
clearly been reversed by the Prime Minister. To say that this
horse has bolted is to liken Shergar to a beach pony; the issue
is well and truly put to bed. I will deal with the points that
hon. Members have made, but it gives me great pleasure to make it
very clear that this Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the Secretary
of State, and the Minister for Climate—in fact, this whole
Government—have returned to our position in the 2019 manifesto,
which was an effective moratorium on fracking.
Furthermore—this may go some way towards answering the point made
by the hon. Member for Bristol East ()—Ministers are taking a
presumption against issuing any further hydraulic fracking
consents. I accept that for a month or two, all sorts of horses
were running wild around the beach, but the position is
absolutely clear. For those listening, and for the 18,000 people
who signed the petition, let me be very clear: the Government are
not about to open up the UK fracking market. We are back to the
position that we set out in 2019.
I thank those who have spoken today. It is a great pleasure to
see the hon. Member for Strangford (); I know I am in the right room when I see him here,
assiduous as ever. I also thank the hon. Members for East
Londonderry (Mr Campbell), for Bath () and for Bristol East. I will
deal with the points that have been made and with the broader
context in which we need to view this issue. I will say something
about the energy supply market, something about gas and something
about local consent. Members have raised some important points
about the role and the mechanisms of local consent in these
sectors, in relation not only to gas but to all critical national
infrastructure and other renewables.
Let me start by setting the scene. As someone who has been in
this House for 12 years and has been watching it for about 30, I
think it is fair to say—I can see that colleagues around the
House feel the same way—that, as a country, for decades we have
rather taken energy for granted. Until about 15 years ago we
presumed it was something that would always be there, very
cheaply, at the flick of a switch, and we did not have to worry
too much about it. That position has changed, rather belatedly
but dramatically, in the last 15 years. I pay tribute to the last
climate change Minister in the Labour Government before 2010, who
started a profound acceleration of our leadership on net zero. I
am proud that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition between
2010 and 2015, and then the Conservative Government, have taken
that forward. Our leadership on net zero has come on leaps and
bounds.
The scale of that success bears repeating. Since 1990, we have
managed to grow the economy by about 40% and the net zero sector
by around 70%. We have managed to demonstrate that it is possible
to have green growth. There has been extraordinary progress. I
accept, as I think everyone does, that as a country we were late
to this. However, low-carbon electricity now gives us around half
of our total generation, we have installed 99% of our solar
capacity since 2010, the onshore wind industry is already
generating over 14 GW and is happily accepted around the
country—onshore wind is cheap—and we have put £30 billion of
domestic investment into the green industrial revolution. Those
are figures that, even 15 years ago, one might have been
surprised to see. This country is genuinely leading in making the
big transitional investments to move to net zero.
Of course, in the last 18 months, the pandemic and the appalling
situation in Ukraine have triggered a cost of living crisis and,
in particular, a cost of energy crisis globally. That has
reminded us of the importance of having resilient supply chains
and ensuring that we are not vulnerable to hostile actors
internationally, or to supply chains in which we can be held to
ransom.
The Minister talks about the UK’s leadership in renewables, which
is positive. Should there not be a Government ambition to be an
exporter of renewable energy, since we have so many opportunities
to share that with Europe? Is that not a brilliant opportunity
when we are talking about global Britain and its leadership in
renewables?
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Indeed, that is why the
former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for
Uxbridge and South Ruislip (), used to refer to the
southern North sea as the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. That is
precisely our ambition. First, we need to ensure that we can meet
our own domestic energy market needs.
The hon. Member for Bath makes a crucial point for me very well,
which is that we are in a global market and global energy demand
over the next 20, 30 and 40 years will rise. It is not just a
question of moving our existing energy demands to renewable
supplies, vital though that is; it is also about developing the
renewables of the future and contributing globally. As Minister
for science, research, technology and innovation, I can say that
we are investing heavily in small nuclear, in fusion, in marine
and in geothermal, because we see a huge opportunity for the UK
to be in the vanguard of the renewables and clean energies of
tomorrow.
I thank the Minister for his detailed, helpful and comprehensive
response. I read in the paper over the weekend about some of the
innovation across the world on which we can interact with others.
I understand that Morocco has an abundance of green energy, and,
if the press are correct, that discussions are taking place
between the UK Government and the Moroccan Government to export
that green energy to the United Kingdom by an undersea channel.
Is the Minister aware of that and if he is, could he elaborate on
it?
The hon. Member has made an important point. I will not attempt
to answer it because I am not the Minister for Climate, but I
will flag it with him and ask that the hon. Member gets a proper
answer.
As well as our groundbreaking leadership in the transition of our
existing energy system to net zero supply, we are investing
heavily in the technologies of tomorrow to ensure that we can be
a global player in the great challenges we face. Agriculture and
transport are the two biggest industries after energy that
generate and use the most carbon and greenhouse gases, and we are
hugely advanced in research and development in those sectors. I
say that as a former Minister for future transport and for
agritech. This country has a huge opportunity as part of the
science superpower mission to generate solutions that we can
export around the world, and I am proud of what we are doing.
Given the crisis in Ukraine and the extraordinary pressures on
everybody this year when it comes to paying their energy bills,
the Government made a huge commitment to cap those energy bills
and provide support, but it is right that our customers—the
constituents we serve, taxpayers, households and businesses—would
expect any responsible Government to look at whether there are
easily and quickly accessible supplies of clean gas in the UK
that could be extracted in a sensible and environmentally
satisfactory way. People would think it was daft and weird if we
were not prepared even to look at doing so in such a context. But
let me be clear: that cannot in any situation go against our own
environmental commitments, the environmental advice we have
received or, crucially, local consent. As others have said, the
British Geological Survey has made it crystal clear that there is
no evidence to suggest that fracking can be pursued in any way
that would pass that test. Again, I am delighted to repeat how
pleased I personally am that we—the Prime Minister, the Cabinet
and the Government —have made it clear that we are back to our
2019 effective moratorium.
Given that the Government are happy to express their commitment
to stopping fracking, would they be willing to put that into
legislation so that we do not always have a shadow of doubt
hanging over us that the issue might raise its ugly head
again?
I hear the hon. Member; she has made her point and put it on the
record. I am slightly adverse to the idea that we put into
legislation every single thing that we are not going to do. We
would be here an awfully long time to reassure everyone. I am not
sure that that is a sustainable way for Parliament to proceed.
The Prime Minister made it clear through the written ministerial
statement to the House, and the sector and community generally
have understood that the idea mooted in September is now dead and
buried, and we will not go back there.
I turn to the important point regarding local consent, which a
number of colleagues have made. There is little I can say about
pockets of local consent in particular areas. With regard to the
situation in North Shropshire, in response to which the hon.
Member for North Shropshire partly brought forward this debate,
the licence for fracking that would potentially impact the Market
Drayton and Whitchurch area is an indicative licence. No work has
been done and no application for work has been received. In the
light of the announcement of the return to the 2019 position, it
is difficult to envisage any situation in which that licence
could be of any use. I reassure her that we are not expecting any
activity in that area.
We all—and the Government certainly—recognise that community
support is important. We generally want planning to be something
that is done through and with local communities, not to them.
Some sort of balance is always required. Obviously, there is a
huge difference between a loft extension and the siting of a huge
piece of critical national infrastructure. However, a good
developer will and should always engage with the local community
and listen to real concerns.
I have seen consultations in my area where concerns have been
expressed but have not been listened to or reflected in the
proposals, and no change has been made to anything that was
promoted. That often drives the view of sham consultations, in
which people are not being heard. We need to be wary of assuming
a one-size-fits-all approach would work for local support.
Difficult though it is to see how this would take off, we have
left open the possibility that if an area—north, south,
south-west, Scotland or Northern Ireland—found itself sitting on
an easy and geologically stable opportunity to exploit shale gas
and came to the Government with strong local consent, strong
environmental data and a strong business and environmental case,
the Government would consider it. That is very different from us
setting an ambition and encouraging this industry around the
country.
My constituency is home to the first two major substations,
connecting the first two offshore wind farms in the southern
North sea. As the local constituency MP, I watched as the scheme
promoter came forward with a proposal for a substation, which I
naively thought 10 years ago was a thing the size of a shipping
container that hums behind a yew bush, but this thing is the size
of Wembley stadium and its proposed location was on top of a
hill, so the whole of Norfolk could see this huge piece of
industrial development. I was not against hosting the substation
in Mid Norfolk, but through decent consultation with the company,
we ended up siting it in low-lying ground, out of sight, with
minimal light and visual impact.
For our thanks, we have had another one; we now have two next to
each other in Mid Norfolk. It is critical infrastructure,
although if we were better connecting all the offshore wind
farms, we could reduce the need for individual substations and
cabling all across the Norfolk and Suffolk coast. The Minister
for Climate is looking into that, because it would support the
infrastructure for trading out of the southern North sea. I have
seen at first hand that communities are often not properly
consulted. As other hon. Members have said, without in any way
opening up the risk of community benefit creating an opportunity
for some sort of inappropriate payments to buy consent, I believe
it is important that when a village is hosting two vast pieces of
national infrastructure, it might get a park bench or some swings
or something from the developer, which is making a huge amount of
money.
There is a difficult balance to strike, but we all know good
consent and good consultation when we see it. We know when a
company is listening and when a community has been properly
heard. I do not think that has been the case often enough and I
am delighted to have the chance to put that on record.
I thank the Minister for giving way and engaging so much in the
debate. There are question marks around where the Government are
going with planning. I believe investment zones have been
dropped, but I am not sure where we are on fast-tracking things,
and bypassing planning permission and local consent. I will leave
that for another day. What I want to ask him is this: I
understand what he said about a hypothetical situation where
fracking was proven to be safe, the local community wanted it and
so on, but why is that not the case for onshore wind? If a local
community would clearly benefit from onshore wind, why are they
not allowed to have it?
I do not want to steal the thunder of my ministerial colleague,
my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, who
is looking at that issue right now. The pandemic and the war in
Ukraine have revealed that we are exposed on a number of our food
and agricultural supply chains. We need to get the balance right
between covering far too much of our agricultural land and
equally making sure that where communities can carry industrial
sites, we have the right incentives in place.
We have had a number of debates in Westminster Hall on that very
issue. Others who have spoken on that have said that key
agricultural land needs to be retained for food production, and
all the more so because of the food supply crisis across the
world and the Ukraine war. With great respect, I believe there
has been a consensus that highly productive agricultural land
needs to be retained for that purpose alone.
The hon. Member makes an important point, which I personally
agree with and the Government are sensitive to. Again, our
constituents would think it perverse if, at the very time when
our exposure to international food supply and agricultural supply
chains has been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and the
pandemic, we were then to decide to take out of productive
capacity huge areas of agricultural land. Agriculture is a great
British industry and the agritech sector is developing net zero
technologies that allow us to do clean and green agriculture. We
do not want to undermine that industry.
The Minister is being generous in giving way. Is it not time that
we busted some urban myths about solar panels and where they go?
Most of the time they go on land that is not suitable for
agricultural use other than, for example, sheep grazing. Is there
not a myth about where we are putting these solar farms?
I am not sure it is a myth; it is a mixed bag. There are areas
where solar has been deployed very effectively, with happy sheep
grazing around it and very little reduction in the productive
capacity of land. I do not want to stray beyond my brief—I am not
the Minister with responsibility for energy—but equally there are
in my part of the world, in the east of England, proposals for
huge, industrial-scale solar on good productive farmland. In the
spirit of the question from the hon. Member for Strangford, I
think a lot of people are worried about those proposals.
I was asking about onshore wind, not the solar issue. With solar,
there is the question of how the Government classify the best and
most versatile—BMV—land. I totally agree with the hon. Member for
Strangford that genuine BMV land should not be used for anything
other than growing food, but I asked about onshore wind. Onshore
wind does not always need to be put on farmland; there are lots
of other potential sites.
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. In some ways, the two
are linked, because there are plenty of examples of deployment of
solar and wind onshore that do not undermine the productive
capacity of land or the attractiveness of the area. Opinion polls
show that if they are properly deployed in the right areas with
the right consultation and consent, onshore measures can be
popular. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Climate is
considering whether there is more we can do to tackle this
short-term energy crisis in a way that does not create a problem
for us downstream.
I should wrap up; I have strayed beyond my core brief as the
Minister for science, research and innovation. Let me close by
giving all those watching this debate around the country clear
reassurance that the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the Government,
the Secretary of State and the Minister for Climate have taken us
back to the position set out in our 2019 manifesto, of which I
was proud: an effective moratorium on fracking. We have made it
clear that Ministers are not looking to open up fracking to
support the crisis in our energy sector. I hope that message goes
forth, loud and clear around the country, to those who were
understandably worried back in September. They no longer need
worry about that at least.
10.27am
I thank you, Mr Paisley, for your chairmanship, and the Backbench
Business Committee for allowing this debate. I also thank the
Minister and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for
Bristol East (), for attending the debate.
To clear up any confusion, at the start I was expressing my
disappointment that there were not more Back Benchers here to put
on the record their concern about their communities being able to
consent to a very controversial process.
I am also grateful to the Minister for clarifying the
Government’s position; I think that we all agree that that U-turn
is welcome. However, while there is still this shadow of doubt,
it would be nice if the Government committed to putting some
formal consent process in place to safeguard communities in the
event of a future change of heart.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford () for his kind words, for giving us the Northern
Ireland perspective, and for clarifying that the issue is
controversial across the whole United Kingdom, not just in rural
England.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath for her kind comments.
She is a formidable environment campaigner, who we are proud to
have in our party, and she made an excellent speech, expressing
that local empowerment is at the heart of what Liberal Democrats
stand for and believe. I am grateful for her contribution.
I cannot remember the last time that anyone described me as
exciting, so I thank the Minister for that kind comment; I hope
that it was well intended!
I am grateful for the comments made today. Everybody has made
valuable points. We strongly feel that the local consent
mechanism should be put in place to safeguard our
communities.
(in the Chair)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on leading her first Westminster
Hall debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered local consent for fracking.
|
