5 questions answered on the fracking comments

According to Cameron,"fracking is safe."

Five questions answered on PM David Cameron’s recent fracking comments

Writing in The Daily Telegraph, UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, has outlined why he thinks people must accept fracking in the UK countryside. We answer five questions on his comments.

What are the key points made by David Cameron in his article?

The Prime Minister wrote the article to speak out in favour of fracking. He said: "fracking has real potential to drive energy bills down", adding that it will create jobs, bring money to local neighbourhoods and that "local people will not be cut out and ignored."

What about the potential damage to the environment, did he address this issue? 

Yes. According to Cameron,"fracking is safe." He says: "International evidence shows there is no reason why the process should cause contamination of water supplies or other environmental damage, if properly regulated." He added that: "I would never sanction something that might ruin our landscapes and scenery."

What about the North/South issue, where will fracking take place?

Cameron, who is no doubt keen to repair damage done by his father-in-law and former government advisor, Lord Howell of Guildford, who said a few weeks ago that gas fracking should be confined to the North East because it was full of "large and uninhabited and desolate areas," confirmed that fracking should take place in both the South and North of England and not just in certain parts of Britain as has been suggested.

He said: "This is wrong. I want all parts of our nation to share in the benefits: north or south, Conservative or Labour. We are all in this together."

What did he say are the benefits of fracking to local communities?

Cameron laid out the benefits fracking could bring to local communities.

"Fracking will bring money to local neighbourhoods," he said

"Companies have agreed to pay £100,000 to every community situated near an exploratory well where they’re looking to see if shale gas exists. If gas is then extracted, 1 per cent of the revenue – perhaps as much as £10m – will go straight back to residents who live nearby."

He added that this money could be used for reduction in council tax bills or invested in neighbourhood schools.

What have those against fracking said?

Tim Farron, president of the Liberal Democrat party in coalition government with Cameron’s Conservatives, has said fracking may damage rural areas.

He told The Sunday Telegraph earlier in the month: I am afraid the Government has seen flashing pound signs, and has not considered the long-term threats fracking poses to the countryside.

"I think this is a very short-sighted policy, and we will all be left to live with the consequences."

He added: "This technology can lead to earth tremors and I’m particularly worried that buried nuclear waste in my part of the country could be affected. We should be investing more in renewable fuels."

A Greenpeace sign outside Conservative HQ. Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Getty
Show Hide image

How Theresa May laid a trap for herself on the immigration target

When Home Secretary, she insisted on keeping foreign students in the figures – causing a headache for herself today.

When Home Secretary, Theresa May insisted that foreign students should continue to be counted in the overall immigration figures. Some cabinet colleagues, including then Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne wanted to reverse this. It was economically illiterate. Current ministers, like the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, also want foreign students exempted from the total.

David Cameron’s government aimed to cut immigration figures – including overseas students in that aim meant trying to limit one of the UK’s crucial financial resources. They are worth £25bn to the UK economy, and their fees make up 14 per cent of total university income. And the impact is not just financial – welcoming foreign students is diplomatically and culturally key to Britain’s reputation and its relationship with the rest of the world too. Even more important now Brexit is on its way.

But they stayed in the figures – a situation that, along with counterproductive visa restrictions also introduced by May’s old department, put a lot of foreign students off studying here. For example, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of Indian students coming to Britain to study in the last five years.

Now May’s stubbornness on the migration figures appears to have caught up with her. The Times has revealed that the Prime Minister is ready to “soften her longstanding opposition to taking foreign students out of immigration totals”. It reports that she will offer to change the way the numbers are calculated.

Why the u-turn? No 10 says the concession is to ensure the Higher and Research Bill, key university legislation, can pass due to a Lords amendment urging the government not to count students as “long-term migrants” for “public policy purposes”.

But it will also be a factor in May’s manifesto pledge (and continuation of Cameron’s promise) to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Until today, ministers had been unclear about whether this would be in the manifesto.

Now her u-turn on student figures is being seized upon by opposition parties as “massaging” the migration figures to meet her target. An accusation for which May only has herself, and her steadfast politicising of immigration, to blame.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496