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

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496