Tuesday, 27 January 2015

Fracking for Normal People.

People may have been reading over the past few days about something called the Infrastructure Bill - it just had its third reading in the House of Commons yesterday (26th January.) Consequently, there is a lot of commentary going on about who voted for what. It was made more complicated because there were two votes last night.

Licences to frack are covered by the Petroleum Act 1998, I don't want to go into the details of fracking or whether its good or bad except perhaps to posit the notion; if you don't know about something its probably best left alone until you do. Currently, powers over licencing sit with the Department of Energy and Climate Change - this is a Westminster Government department so has nothing to do with Holyrood.

So what happened last night with this Infrastructure Bill? First of all, what is it. This isn't as easy to ascertain as you might think, I mean, fracking is quite important - since we don't know for sure what the ramifications are (although some accounts involve flaming taps and earthquakes) you'd think they'd make it a bit clearer.

Here's the preamble from the bill:


Make provision for strategic highways companies and the funding of transport services by land; to make provision for the control of invasive non-native species; to make provision about nationally significant infrastructure projects; to make provision about town and country planning; to make provision about the Homes and Communities Agency and Mayoral development corporations; to make provision about the Greater London Authority so far as it exercises functions for the purposes of housing and regeneration; to make provision about Her Majesty’s Land Registry and local land charges; to make provision to enable building regulations to provide for off-site carbon abatement measures; to make provision for giving members of communities the right to buy stakes in local renewable electricity generation facilities; to make provision about maximising economic recovery of petroleum in the United Kingdom; to provide for a levy to be charged on holders of certain energy licences; to enable Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to exercise functions in connection with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative; to make provision for underground access to deep-level land for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep geothermal energy; to make provision about renewable heat incentives; to make provision about the reimbursement of persons who have paid for electricity connections; to make provision to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners to be abolished; to make provision about the electronic communications code; and for connected purposes.
This is the bit about fracking:

Make provision for strategic highways companies and the funding of transport services by land; to make provision for the control of invasive non-native species; to make provision about nationally significant infrastructure projects; to make provision about town and country planning; to make provision about the Homes and Communities Agency and Mayoral development corporations; to make provision about the Greater London Authority so far as it exercises functions for the purposes of housing and regeneration; to make provision about Her Majesty’s Land Registry and local land charges; to make provision to enable building regulations to provide for off-site carbon abatement measures; to make provision for giving members of communities the right to buy stakes in local renewable electricity generation facilities; to make provision about maximising economic recovery of petroleum in the United Kingdom; to provide for a levy to be charged on holders of certain energy licences; to enable Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to exercise functions in connection with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative; to make provision for underground access to deep-level land for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep geothermal energy; to make provision about renewable heat incentives; to make provision about the reimbursement of persons who have paid for electricity connections; to make provision to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners to be abolished; to make provision about the electronic communications code; and for connected purposes. 
I'm still not sure about the 'Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative' - I'm just assuming its to do with fracking. In its entirety, the bill goes on for some 109 pages but last night's activity in the House of Commons consisted of a debate then two votes.

One was to do with devolving licences to frack to the Scottish Parliament, the other concerned a (Lib Dem proposed) moratorium on fracking across the entire UK. (Point to note, Northern Ireland already has the power to licence onshore petroleum recovery, including fracking. Off shore exploration/extraction still sits at Westminster.)

The upshot was put most succinctly in this morning's edition of The National:



So much of what goes on by politicians is calculated, while we can't say if Labour's attempts to devolve licencing around fracking to the Scottish Government was calculated to fail, given their very public opposition to just about any powers (actual powers, not responsibilities) being devolved to the Scottish Government - you'd be forgiven for being suspicious.

To be clear, Labour MP's like Curran & Nash voted for licencing being devolved, the problem is, they abstained from voting on a moratorium on fracking across the UK. What can one read in to that? Labour themselves are frozen by indecision but don't mind passing the buck onto others. They are the political equivalent of the classroom clype - worse than that, they'll happily line up others to carry the can while they hide in the sandpit.

To carry the analogy further, its a game of pass the parcel with the prize being a turd wrapped in several layers of very bad newspaper coverage. Ineos who own the Grangemouth refinery are currently importing Shale Gas (which is what you get from fracking) from Pennsylvania - this costs money and they (oddly) argue it adds to the carbon footprint of the process. They want to secure domestic supplies of Shale Gas which means fracking around the central belt, Fife, the Lothians - you've seen the map...



Ineos (and others) have already been awarded licences to frack in the central belt, last night's vote would have suspended the award of further licences.

Currently, the Scottish Government has no powers over licensing but could block Hydraulic Fracturing through the planning process. That puts them in an invidious position: on the one hand they'll have the anti-fracking pressure groups with their concerns and on the other Ineos and all those jobs. As we know, when it comes to jobs, Ineos play very hard indeed.

Labour on the other hand are free and clear - or they seem to think so. Their duty has been discharged, they wanted (to be seen wanting) licencing devolved but their motion was defeated. We shouldn't forget though, they abstained from voting on a moratorium across the UK which arguably would've achieved the same thing.

While all this was going on, the Scottish Labour Leader - who will 'not allow Scotland to be a Guinea Pig' for fracking' - was engaged in serious business north of the border.


Jim Murphy: "Have you seen my football?". 

6 comments:

  1. Wish I'd read your piece before I wrote mine.

    I think I misunderstood some of the stuff I was reading last night.

    Oh well.

    You make a good point about the jobs. The Scottish government will be under a lot of pressure to withhold the licences on planning grounds (although this can be overturned by Westminster), but Ineos, as you say, plays hard, and has the power of a lot of jobs.

    I wonder if the Scottish government could, in return, play very hard back, by accepting the closure, compulsorily purchasing the plant and running it as a nationalised concern!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Tris.

    It took me a while to understand what happened, even then, I haven't covered it properly. The Lib Dem moratorium was a back bench effort - front line Lib Dems MP's voted against it. I also didn't know WM had a veto over Holyrood planning decisions.

    Rev Stu (typically) covers it best, although he doesn't mention the ramifications with Ineos and the gamesmanship from 'Scottish' Labour in that direction.

    Neither wonder people find it difficult to follow.

    I would agree, during the previous hoohaa at Grangemouth, it was said to be a profitable concern despite Ineos siphoning it all away to other companies it owned in an attempt to hide it, perhaps it could be nationalised as you say.

    And then there's Jim. Oh dear... Who ever arranged that must have it in for him...

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for your explanation, perhaps you could do the same for those Members of Labour (Scottish Branch) who cannot understand voting for or against and who think abstaining is the same.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Helena.

    Its still awfy murky but I think we get it, even if 'Scottish' Labour think we all came up the forth on an LPG carrier.

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pa

    My suspicion is Labour know exactly what they are doing and will have been advised, either by their own lawyers or by civil servants, but Labour will know exactly what they are doing. I also suspect that the Conservatives made no noise because Labour were doing exactly what the Tories wanted them to do. I know that sounds crazy but I just feel that Miliband either falls into Tory traps all the time or is doing things that are no different from Tory policy anyway.

    I don't understand the ins and outs of fracking but I do know, as we all do, that anything even remotely giving Scotland any real power or any advantage over England or blocking revenue to London will never be allowed. No voters were sold down the river and this is just another example of the consequences of that.

    I just don't trust any of them anymore, I also don't like the SNP talk of a deal with Labour. It's a trap waiting to happen, if it's a hung parliament then a government of the Tories/Labour will be formed to make sure Scotland knows exactly where it stands and holds no balance of power in London, but that might not be a bad thing as it would finally get the message across to no voters.

    Either way Labour Tories and Tory Tories can go f themselves as far as I'm concerned. I'm sick of waiting for change as we don't have the time anymore to wait on change . We are being robbed, conned and starved, the days of playing nice need to be over. At least the people of Greece had some balls. Who knows how it will turn out but if they stick to their guns good for them because the days of the elite and their pals has to come to an end.

    Sorry for the rant, one of those days.

    Bruce

    ReplyDelete
  6. No apology needed Bruce, rant away.

    I totally agree with you re. a pact with Labour. I now believe Labour are as toxic in Scotland as the Tories. The SNP are still outliers in terms of WM elections in the same way the Lib Dems were. The Lib Dems got into bed with the Tories, what ever they thought would happen is beside the point, they got tainted and are now fucked.

    Its not just Tories that are toxic or Labour - its now Westminster Unionist parties; they're all toxic. A lot of voters in Scotland know it but can't bring themselves to vote that way just yet.

    Hopefully though... As you say, Greece had the balls (albeit their situation was more grave) its time Scotland grew a pair.

    They said we'd end up like Greece if we voted yes, I reckon we'll end up like Greece if we stick with the union.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for comment as always and I apologise if you have to jump through any hoops to do so. Its just that, I'm still being spammed by organisations who are certain I can't get it up or when it is up its not big enough or that I don't have anyone to get it up for.

Who knew blogging could be so bad for ones self-confidence?