My Lords, again, I am extremely grateful for the measured way in which this debate is taking place and for the very eloquent way in which noble Lords have presented their arguments, whether supporting what the Government are doing or raising amendments to show concerns. I welcome the spirit behind the amendments, which are aimed at ensuring that environmental safety is fully protected throughout the shale gas extraction process and reassuring the public that that is the case. My noble friend Lord Borwick said that to enable trust we need to ensure that the regulators are presenting a trustworthy way in which to approach the regulatory system.
We have among the most trusted regulators in the world. The commitments the regulators—the Environment Agency and so forth—have undertaken has allowed the debate to become much more measured.
5.15 pm
We fully agree with these aims and appreciate the noble Baroness’s desire to support this industry’s development as long as these aims are met. However, we believe the existing system already delivers these aims, underpinned as it is by site-specific decision-making from experts in the environment, health and safety and local planning. In addition, a number of existing industry commitments address elements of this amendment, even where the expert regulators might not deem them necessary.
In weighing up these amendments, I hope noble Lords agree that we must follow a risk-based approach to shale gas development, one that gives confidence to the public because it is firmly rooted in the best available science. It has to be evidenced, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, stated.
On the first element of the amendments, we agree with the Opposition that baseline monitoring is essential before production begins, in addition to ongoing monitoring throughout the period of activities. The UK already has a good set of regional groundwater data, thanks to work conducted by the British Geological Survey, to which my noble friend Lord Jenkin referred. In addition, the Environment Agency has confirmed that it would typically require baseline monitoring of groundwater methane for each specific site proposing to undertake fracking. The agency would not normally require baseline monitoring for sites without fracking because they do not include any form of fluid injection, so there is no discharge to the environment.
For fracked sites, the precise length of time the agency would require would depend on the risks and characteristics at that site. However, typically this would be a three-month period, not 12 months as proposed. This is because methane levels do not fluctuate from one season to another, as the BGS’s extensive work has revealed. As such, a risk-based approach would not require the lengthy period suggested by the noble Baroness. I am particularly conscious of the need to follow a risk-based approach on this issue because the period suggested could, as my noble friend Lord Borwick said, take a site out of production for a whole year. Therefore, while I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, a blanket approach of 12 months for all sites does not feel proportionate.
On the second element, the industry has already publicly committed to carrying out environmental impact assessments for all fracking sites, and this commitment has been seen through in the planning applications submitted earlier this year. This goes beyond EU requirements, which require environmental impact assessments to be undertaken for production above certain levels or where the scheme exceeds certain other thresholds and is likely to have significant effects.
Operators appreciate that at this early stage of development, public confidence is key. They have therefore voluntarily agreed to conduct EIAs whenever fracking is involved. We welcome this industry agreement. Nevertheless, we are concerned that legislating to force this, and to do so for all shale sites even where hydraulic fracturing is not proposed and the development is unlikely to have significant effects, would be disproportionate. The proposal was discussed as part of the recent
revision of the EIA directive and was roundly rejected by member states, including the United Kingdom. We appreciate the desire to build public confidence at this early stage but believe the desired outcome is already being achieved through industry commitments.
The third element, chemical disclosure, is already required on a well-by-well basis. Operators must notify the environmental regulator of the volume and composition of the frack fluid and seek its permission prior to proceeding. The regulator will set this out when publishing the permit, including each chemical and the maximum concentration authorised for use. In addition, the industry has committed to publish this information, including each of the chemicals used, the total volume of frack fluid used and the maximum volume of each chemical within that.
Turning to the fourth element on making water companies statutory consultees, the Government understand the concern over not just water pollution but water use. On the former, the environmental regulator checks the potential impact on groundwater of any hydraulic fracturing operations ahead of any hydraulic fracturing taking place and will not grant a permit where the risk is unacceptable, such as if there were a risk of hazardous chemicals entering an aquifer.
On the question of water use, the water industry and shale operators have agreed an MoU to engage early and share plans for water demand and waste management.
Currently, if a water company has concerns about this or any other aspect such as water usage it is able to comment through the consultation that the planning authority undertakes on each planning application, which is open to the public. If the authority wishes, it is already free to consult the water company to seek the company’s views on the planning merits of the development. Making the water company a statutory consultee would add very little to this process other than removing the important local discretion that a planning authority has to decide for itself when it needs the views of others, based on the specifics of the case. Importantly it would also oblige the water company to make a response whether it wished to or not. Given the opportunities already available to do so and the broader controls that apply, we do not think adding this obligation enhances the level of environmental protection already in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, referred to the work done at Durham University. The noble Lord was not present for the debate on the earlier amendment where I referred to the ReFINE report. I completely agree with him on the importance of considering relevant analysis, reports and evidence. I am sorry that he missed the important contribution that I made earlier on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, asked about the programme of research monitoring methane emissions from shale, oil and gas exploratory sites. The UK Onshore Operators Group has committed to monitoring work being undertaken on its sites. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked who paid for the baseline monitoring. The operators pay for this and arrange for it to be carried out.
I hope I have managed to convince noble Lords that we have taken and take very seriously the issues of public confidence and trust, and of ensuring that we do absolutely everything we can to monitor and report on this, keeping safety for the environment and local people at the forefront of all that is undertaken. I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.