Labour wants to amend regulations for shale gas exploration. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Slowing the coalition's dash for gas: Labour will overhaul shale gas regulations

Labour’s amendments to the Infrastructure Bill would overhaul the existing framework and give us a regulatory regime that is fit for purpose.

In 2012, the Royal Academy of Engineers and the Royal Society produced a joint paper examining the regulatory regime for shale gas. They found that the “health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing” could be safely managed if proper regulation was in place. David Cameron took this as an all clear to go "all out for shale" and has since pushed ahead recklessly in his dash for gas, citing the most optimistic job projections and endorsing the misleading notion from George Osborne that somehow shale gas is automatically cheap.

The reality is that there are clear flaws in the existing framework, and without robust regulation and comprehensive monitoring then extraction of shale cannot go ahead. Environmental Impact Assessments are mandatory for sites over one hectare – shale gas operators have been buying up 0.99 hectare plots. The integrity of the well has to be inspected by an independent party – but the current definition of “independent” allows that person to be on the shale gas company’s payroll. Baseline assessments of levels of methane in the groundwater remain optional. But despite these obvious loopholes, David Cameron’s government have repeatedly side-lined genuine and legitimate environmental concern and seem prepared to accept shale gas at any cost.

That is not acceptable, and is why Labour will today propose a fundamental overhaul of the regulations for shale gas in a series of amendments to the coalition's Infrastructure Bill.

Each of our eleven amendments closes a loophole in the existing regulations which David Cameron has chosen to ignore. We require baseline assessments of methane in the groundwater, monitoring and reporting of fugitive emissions and properly independent inspections of well-integrity. We will introduce a presumption against development in protected areas such as national parks and will empower planning authorities to consider the cumulative impact of shale gas developments on an area, rather than considering individual applications on a case by case basis.

This measures are vital if we are to have a regulatory regime that is fit for purpose. But instead of fixing the regulatory framework, the Tories have tried to cut the “green tape” on shale, desperate to present shale gas as the silver bullet to all of our energy problems.

And whilst the coalition appears increasingly ambivalent about our climate change commitments, Labour are clear that shale gas extraction cannot come at the cost of our carbon budgets or longer term targets. That is why we will legislate for a 2030 target for the effective decarbonisation of the power sector.

Despite hyperbolic claims from those with an absolutist opposition to the development of any fossil fuels, the Committee on Climate Change concluded that, “meeting a given amount of UK gas demand via domestic shale gas production could lead to slightly lower emissions than importing LNG.” While eight out of ten homes still rely on gas for heating, shale gas may have a role to play in displacing some of the gas we currently import and improving our energy security – it is not about increasing how much gas we use, but where we get it from. That is why we should not absolutely rule out a potential source of the gas we will continue to need - but the regulatory regime needs to properly stand scrutiny and be effective.

Between David Cameron’s reckless dash for gas and the absolute anti-fossil fuel position of a small minority, there is a rational and evidence-led approach to shale gas that recognises the potential benefits but is not prepared to sacrifice proper environmental protection. Labour’s amendments to the Infrastructure Bill would overhaul the existing framework and give us a regulatory regime that is fit for purpose.

Tom Greatrex is the Labour MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West and shadow energy minister

Tom Greatrex is shadow energy minister and Labour MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West

Getty
Show Hide image

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.