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

There's nothing Luddite about banning zero-hours contracts

The TUC general secretary responds to the Taylor Review. 

Unions have been criticised over the past week for our lukewarm response to the Taylor Review. According to the report’s author we were wrong to expect “quick fixes”, when “gradual change” is the order of the day. “Why aren’t you celebrating the new ‘flexibility’ the gig economy has unleashed?” others have complained.

Our response to these arguments is clear. Unions are not Luddites, and we recognise that the world of work is changing. But to understand these changes, we need to recognise that we’ve seen shifts in the balance of power in the workplace that go well beyond the replacement of a paper schedule with an app.

Years of attacks on trade unions have reduced workers’ bargaining power. This is key to understanding today’s world of work. Economic theory says that the near full employment rates should enable workers to ask for higher pay – but we’re still in the middle of the longest pay squeeze for 150 years.

And while fears of mass unemployment didn’t materialise after the economic crisis, we saw working people increasingly forced to accept jobs with less security, be it zero-hours contracts, agency work, or low-paid self-employment.

The key test for us is not whether new laws respond to new technology. It’s whether they harness it to make the world of work better, and give working people the confidence they need to negotiate better rights.

Don’t get me wrong. Matthew Taylor’s review is not without merit. We support his call for the abolishment of the Swedish Derogation – a loophole that has allowed employers to get away with paying agency workers less, even when they are doing the same job as their permanent colleagues.

Guaranteeing all workers the right to sick pay would make a real difference, as would asking employers to pay a higher rate for non-contracted hours. Payment for when shifts are cancelled at the last minute, as is now increasingly the case in the United States, was a key ask in our submission to the review.

But where the report falls short is not taking power seriously. 

The proposed new "dependent contractor status" carries real risks of downgrading people’s ability to receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Here new technology isn’t creating new risks – it’s exacerbating old ones that we have fought to eradicate.

It’s no surprise that we are nervous about the return of "piece rates" or payment for tasks completed, rather than hours worked. Our experience of these has been in sectors like contract cleaning and hotels, where they’re used to set unreasonable targets, and drive down pay. Forgive us for being sceptical about Uber’s record of following the letter of the law.

Taylor’s proposals on zero-hours contracts also miss the point. Those on zero hours contracts – working in low paid sectors like hospitality, caring, and retail - are dependent on their boss for the hours they need to pay their bills. A "right to request" guaranteed hours from an exploitative boss is no right at all for many workers. Those in insecure jobs are in constant fear of having their hours cut if they speak up at work. Will the "right to request" really change this?

Tilting the balance of power back towards workers is what the trade union movement exists for. But it’s also vital to delivering the better productivity and growth Britain so sorely needs.

There is plenty of evidence from across the UK and the wider world that workplaces with good terms and conditions, pay and worker voice are more productive. That’s why the OECD (hardly a left-wing mouth piece) has called for a new debate about how collective bargaining can deliver more equality, more inclusion and better jobs all round.

We know as a union movement that we have to up our game. And part of that thinking must include how trade unions can take advantage of new technologies to organise workers.

We are ready for this challenge. Our role isn’t to stop changes in technology. It’s to make sure technology is used to make working people’s lives better, and to make sure any gains are fairly shared.

Frances O'Grady is the General Secretary of the TUC.