THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID AND PROMISED
Hydraulic Fracturing 6 DECEMBER 2011
Private Members’ Business
3:30 pm
Debate resumed on motion:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2011-12-06.8.1
That this Assembly believes that a moratorium should be placed on the onshore and offshore exploration, development and production of shale gas by withdrawing licences for hydraulic fracturing (fracking), at least until the publication of a detailed environmental impact assessment into the practice; notes that hydraulic fracturing can put local water sources at risk of contamination; further notes that, amongst a variety of adverse environmental impacts, the process of fracking can cause serious well blowouts, which put both workers and local communities at risk; considers that the production of hard-to-reach fossil fuels is not compatible with efforts to achieve carbon reduction targets; and urges the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to give greater support to the generation of energy from renewable sources instead. — [Ms Lo.]
Simon Hamilton(DUP)
I had not expected to be called, but I will do my best to whip myself up into a frenzy after the two-hour break in the debate. It is sometimes difficult for Members to be humble and accept that there are things that we do not know. I have sometimes exhibited the characteristics of that problem, as have others. Part of the problem in the debate is that a lot of people have been speaking on this difficult, complex issue as if they were world authorities, when it is clear from their contributions that they are not. Some people should accept the fact that they are not experts or authorities on the subject.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
My party and I support a precautionary approach precisely because we do not know everything about fracking, hydraulic fracturing or whatever one wants to call it. Everyone should be able to get behind such a precautionary approach, which is exactly what the Department has been bringing forward. If the hyperbole and partisan point scoring were taken out of some earlier contributions, the message would be that everyone wants a precautionary approach. Although the debate has been divided, we can all unite behind that thought.
The motion is flawed because everybody subscribes to a precautionary approach and because of the issue of licences. Whatever about the legal and cost ramifications should the Minister withdraw what licences there are, there are no licences for hydraulic fracturing in place at present. As I understand it — I stand to be corrected if I am inaccurate — there are licences for geographical mapping exercises, which could lead to drilling at a later stage. If we get to that stage, my understanding is that planning permission and an environmental impact assessment will be required.
This is not a done deal that is definitely going to happen; there are huge processes to go through. As other Members pointed out, we have a fairly strict environmental regime here in comparison with other places in which fracking is already happening. Scare stories from those places have already been mentioned today. It is little wonder that there is concern in the community about what fracking involves and that people are scared of what might happen, given the hysteria that has been whipped up in the Chamber today. If I had never heard about the issue or had not done any research, the words of some Members would leave me feeling deeply concerned. What we heard today is in no way a balanced argument. It does not take into account the fact that a precautionary approach is being taken.
There is also the question of whether we should do this sort of thing on principle. I find it confusing that there is a belief that we can suddenly give up our virtual dependence on fossil fuels for energy and move to some sort of renewable Utopia. People who believe that most countries will not depend on fossil fuels as part of their energy mix in the short to medium term are kidding themselves. Rather than looking for alternative sources for fossil fuels and other forms of energy, people argue that security of supply does not matter. They say that it does not matter whether you are at the end of a pipeline, that you can be held hostage by a madman in the Middle East or that a Russian oligarch can turn off the tap or put up the prices. People here are encouraging us to do that.
What maddens me even more is that it is not just this issue. There is a problem with all the other alternative energy sources as well, according to some of the people who brought the motion forward. If it is wind energy, they do not want the wind turbines in certain places. If it is wave power, they want somebody put on seal watch to ensure that seals are not massacred in any way. If it is energy from waste, they are against that as well. I do not even want to touch on nuclear power, not least because I do not have the time to do it. It seems to be that, with every single alternative energy source that is put forward, the very people who would preach to us about moving away from fossil fuels are against it.
A cautious steady approach is what the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is putting forward. I listened to the SDLP Members speaking about opposing it as well. I do not know whether they do not have confidence in the planning system, they do not have confidence in the planning officials, or they simply do not have confidence in their own planning Minister. That Minister will play a key role in the process, but I would not be surprised if they do not have confidence in him, given what we have seen played out in the media in recent months. A cautious steady approach, the very approach that the Minister and the Department are taking forward —
William Hay(DUP)
Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?
Simon Hamilton(DUP)
— is exactly what we should all be united around today.
William Hay(DUP)
The Member’s time is up.
Simon Hamilton(DUP)
The motion is a silly one, intended only to divide rather than to accept the facts of the situation.
Patsy McGlone(Social Democratic and Labour Party)
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In rising on behalf of my party to support the motion, I thank Ms Lo for introducing the motion earlier. I realise that a lot of feelings run through every community. The reason I say that is that I represented a community for 16 years, and I am glad that Mr Frew mentioned it. Although we seek to rationalise such things and present details around them, deep-seated feelings run through communities, as in the area that I represented, where there was lignite open-cast mining. I have heard the arguments from the other side about fuels, but, ultimately, we must take cognisance of and listen to the communities that it is happening in, and treat them with the respect and sensitivity required.
Paul Givan(DUP)
I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I note the comments about listening to the community and taking on its concerns. I absolutely agree that we should do that, but is it not also incumbent on those political representatives not to exploit communities’ fears to score political points against people but to be informed about the issue and then provide leadership to those communities so that hysteria is not whipped up unnecessarily?
Patsy McGlone(Social Democratic and Labour Party)
I could not disagree with that at all. In fact, I am glad that the motion has been brought before us today because that is precisely the sort of thing that we wish to avoid through the debate. We want to make it informed, so as to make people aware, inside the House and outside it, of how the process works.
Over a number of years, we have sought to look at fossil fuels. I have heard the arguments from the other side of the Chamber. The development of more efficient mining technology has resulted in a rash of applications by private companies for a licence to use, in this case, hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, in the extraction of previously hard-to-reach and, consequently, unprofitable shale gas. I have to put it on record that I do not oppose private companies making a profit, but the Assembly has a duty to ensure that the pursuit of short-term private profit does not come at any long-term public cost. I will expand on that later.
We now know that the European Commission has commenced three major studies in response to concerns about environmental, social and health problems that may arise as a result of the process. Those studies can help to allay fears in the community, and I would like to hear from the Minister about the recognition of that by her Department and other Departments, because I am also aware that other Departments will play a role in the process as it works its way through. It is very important that Departments send out a message to communities that their interests are also being considered.
I spoke to a gentleman here today from Pennsylvania in the United States who lived quite close to one of those mining areas where fracking had been taking place. He was deeply concerned. Indeed, the reason he was here today was to highlight those concerns to Members involved in the debate. I thank him for being here with us.
There are issues around what are referred to as —
Robin Newton(DUP)
I thank the Member for giving way. Mr Hamilton already referred to the inaccuracy of the motion, which states that: “the process of fracking can cause serious well blowouts”.
We know that all drilling can cause blowouts. Indeed, the very fact that fracturing is singled out gives cause for concern. When hydraulic fracturing takes place, the gas is at a much lower pressure than in conventional oil and gas drilling, in which such events are rare. The main reason is that shale gas is typically at a much lower pressure than that produced in conventional gas drilling.
Patsy McGlone(Social Democratic and Labour Party)
I thank the Member for his intervention, which was more of a speech than an intervention. He will appreciate the concern about the issues that arise from hydraulic fracturing. Millions of gallons of water are used in the process of hydraulic fracturing, hence the need for an environmental impact assessment. Up to 40% of that water, together with the chemicals added by the industry, namely the heavy metals, salt and volatile petroleum compounds, will potentially come back into the water system as a blowback. If there is any sort of seismic shift as a consequence of, or simultaneous to, that fracking process and it permeates the underground or overground waterways, we will have to give that serious and major consideration.
William Hay(DUP)
Draw your remarks to a close.
Patsy McGlone(Social Democratic and Labour Party)
There are 500 chemicals commonly used in the process of hydraulic fracturing. There has to be a requirement on the industry to declare what those chemicals are —
William Hay(DUP)
The Member’s time is up.
Arlene Foster(DUP)
Today’s debate offers me an excellent opportunity to clarify a number of issues surrounding the process of exploration for shale gas and to set the record straight on a number of allegations that have been made today, all of which are incorrect. It is the role of responsible Ministers to seek to take full advantage of any indigenous natural resources that Northern Ireland has and to support those who are willing to invest not inconsiderable sums of money in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, I take very seriously the many concerns that have been raised about the potential risks of trying to exploit potential oil and gas reserves here. Those concerns are genuine for the most part. I appreciate that the many people who have written to me or e-mailed me about the issue have deeply held views.
Let me make one or two things abundantly clear at the outset. The premise of the motion is fundamentally flawed. There is no licence for fracking in Northern Ireland. No hydraulic fracking licence has been issued. I do not know how many more ways I can say that. Today, Members in the Chamber and, indeed, the motion asked me to withdraw licences for hydraulic fracking. There are no licences for hydraulic fracking. Indeed, no one in Northern Ireland has a licence to extract oil or gas by any method.
My Department has issued licences to four companies in three counties in Northern Ireland, which permit them to explore for oil and gas. It is important to emphasise that, should those explorations prove fruitful and lead to a wish to go further and try to extract the valuable commodity, the necessary application for drilling and developing oil or gas will be subject to the full rigour of the planning system and associated environmental impact assessment processes. To respond to Mr McGlone’s point: DETI and other regulators, notably the Department of the Environment (DOE), will undertake detailed scrutiny of any proposals in the context of the rigorous international engineering protocols that are emerging. That point was made clear to me by Ms Lo outside the Chamber as well. We will take into account all the international engineering protocols that are now emerging.
So, no fracking licences have been issued by my Department, and therefore —
3:45 pm
Anna Lo(Alliance)
I thank the Minister for giving way. As I said outside the Chamber, within the planning policy framework, do you think that we have the competence in DOE to have a full, rigorous and independent impact assessment?
Arlene Foster(DUP)
Obviously, that is a matter for my colleague in DOE, but if he does not have the competence internally, he will have to look outside of DOE for that international competence. Under European regulations, we will have to carry out an environmental impact assessment that satisfies the European Commission. Therefore, the rigorous international engineering protocols will have to be met and dealt with.
The licence to explore for shale gas which has been issued in County Fermanagh — that seems to be the area that people are looking at most closely — does not permit the operator to do anything more than undertake desk studies and similar preparatory work. Construction works, deep drilling, fracking and similar major activities must and will be subject to planning and many other safeguards. I would not have that any other way.
We can hardly impose a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, because no permit has yet been issued, and it is unlikely that an application will come to the Department for at least another 12 to 18 months. During that period, we will reap the benefit of several in-depth scientific and engineering studies currently in progress, notably in the United States.
When Members listen to the debate and look at the Hansard report for today, they will find that we are dancing on the head of a pin. We all want to see environmental impact assessments carried out in respect of fracking. We all want to see that the regulations that have been put in place in Northern Ireland are carried out fully and competently, and I would not have that any other way in County Fermanagh for the obvious reason.
Developing a more diverse, sustainable and secure heating market is, however, a key priority for my Department. Northern Ireland, as we hear many times in the Chamber, is overly dependent on home heating oil and that leaves consumers vulnerable to price fluctuations beyond our control and has a direct impact on levels of fuel poverty. Moving from our current dependence on fossil fuels and maximising our renewable resources in a cost-competitive way is, of course, a challenge, but a move to renewables will bring many benefits. Renewables can be a key player in creating the investment, exports and jobs that the Northern Ireland economy needs, and Members referred to that today. Renewable energy is no longer a fringe industry but very much a part of the mainstream, and we should look to shale gas to be the same. Not only might domestic shale gas production help to provide energy independence, it could also play a significant role in job creation.
I have read Bill Clinton’s new book, ‘Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy’, in which he says clearly that, as we develop other sources of clean power, we should use natural gas a bridge fuel. It is the cleanest fossil fuel — more than 50% cleaner than coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, 25% cleaner than oil when used in transportation and only one fourth as expensive. Bill Clinton sees it as one of the ways to put America back to work. People can look up that reference in his book.
Environmental concerns can and have been raised about all forms of energy production, and Mr Hamilton referred to that. However, we are all aware of the robust planning processes that are in place to protect the natural environment and those same measures will apply to shale gas extraction and the fracking process. Those operations will be regulated under a wide range of petroleum, environmental protection, pollution prevention, planning and health and safety legislation.
I firmly believe that Northern Ireland needs to explore the potential that shale gas offers. Even to consider imposing a moratorium at this early stage would reek of a missed opportunity. That view is reinforced by the findings of a recent United Kingdom study carried out by the House of CommonsSelect Committee on Energy and Climate Change. The Committee took evidence from a range of scientific, industrial and environmental organisations and concluded that:
“There is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing process poses any risk to underground water aquifers provided that the well-casing is intact before the process commences.”
Moreover, the environmental and climate risks posed by shale gas need to be balanced against its potential contribution to energy security. On balance, we feel that there should not be a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing in the exploitation of the UK’s hydrocarbon resources, including unconventional resources such as shale gas.
Members should look beyond the negative headlines from the United States — and I accept that there are many — and be mindful of the fact that more than 50,000 shale gas wells have been successfully developed in the United States, and that that source of gas now provides 20% to 30% of US domestic gas supply.
The well-publicised instances of water pollution arising from fracking operations in the United States undoubtedly resulted from poorly engineered wells constructed and operated within a fragmented and weak regulatory regime. Nobody can say that Northern Ireland has such a regime; it has a very strong regulatory regime. Indeed, the regulatory authorities would have oversight and control of all drilling operations.
Members also voiced their concern that fracking can put local water resources at risk of contamination, despite the fact that fracking was used in County Fermanagh in the early 2000s and there were no huge problems, even though we did not have as much regulation at that time. Therefore, let me clearly state my confidence in the extensive regulations governing this area to ensure that the operation can be safely managed. All the processes will require consents from the Department of the Environment and will be monitored in practice. The operation in County Fermanagh — Tamboran Resources — plans to undertake the fracking process without using chemicals, thus further mitigating any risk of contamination.
Mr Agnew said that it uses chemicals in other areas. However, it uses other chemicals, as, indeed, do other companies, in ordinary drilling processes, but it does not use chemicals in this fracturing process.
In Northern Ireland, perhaps even more than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, we benefit from a regulatory regime run by central government, where the lines of communication are open and easy. My Department has established a regulators’ forum, which brings together representatives from DETI, DOE, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) and the Health and Safety Executive, together with officials from Northern Ireland Water. The group is collating existing regulations, monitoring developments, noting gaps in legislation, and thus compiling an integrated process to regulate those new engineering processes well before they begin.
We also enjoy considerable support from our colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change in Great Britain, which has been controlling and monitoring oil and gas exploration in Great Britain for decades. Indeed, the United Kingdom has always been a world leader in energy development, and all that experience is at our disposal.
Members also raised the issue of possible well blowouts, which, of course, is a very serious concern. However, I must point out — I think that the point was made by Mr Newton, who was called the Minister; I can understand why, as he was very well informed — that almost all blowouts occur in conventional exploration where gas and oil are at high pressure in a geological trap. That is not the case in shale gas wells, where gas flows slowly to the surface for collection, so the high pressures of conventional exploration are not developed. Blowouts from fracked wells have been recorded, but they are extremely rare. Again, it is a matter that will be assessed at the planning stage and covered in detail by operating protocols.
Turning to the question of the carbon footprint of shale gas development, the Department of Energy and Climate Change has said that it expects the carbon footprint for shale gas to be similar to other onshore natural gas fields. Shale gas provides a valuable opportunity for increasing the security of energy supply and stabilising gas supplies over the medium term, during which time we shall reduce the overall energy carbon footprint by increasing the proportion of renewables and promoting carbon capture and storage.
I am aware of the argument that developing shale gas may defer the development of renewables. However, any local shale gas production should substitute for necessary imported coal, oil and gas rather than increase the percentage of fossil fuels in Northern Ireland’s energy supply. Therefore, rather than have an impact on the slowing-down of renewables, it would, in fact, displace coal, oil and gas.
I could go through in some detail my commitment to renewables, which, I understand, is proposed in the last part of the motion. I have set out that commitment on many occasions in the House during debates on the strategic energy framework, so I do not believe that there is a necessity to do so again, save to say that, when all the initiatives are taken together, I suspect that there is no other area in the United Kingdom the size of Northern Ireland or with its population that can boast such a diversity of renewables under development.
To conclude, I ask Members to face some stark facts.
Jim Allister(Traditional Unionist Voice)
I have been listening carefully to the Minister and to the debate. She has provided some useful clarification on a number of issues that were raised. Can she further clarify a couple of things? First, the Minister said that the present licence does not permit for any drilling. One of her colleagues referred to it as a “desktop exercise”. Is there not even, within the licence, permission for exploratory drilling? Secondly, what are the criteria by which the current licence was judged? Did it have any test to pass? What are the criteria that must be met before you get a licence such as this? Can the Minister explain that?
Arlene Foster(DUP)
The licence was granted after a competitive process, which was carried out in a legislative way in consultation with the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in London. A panel was set up comprising officials in DETI and officials in DECC. They set up a procedure, and that is how the process was carried out. The process has been set out in some detail to the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I am happy for the Member to see the process and to send him a copy of it so that he is informed in that regard.
I will move now to the drilling. Shallow boreholes can be drilled to take rock samples, but drilling down into the substructure to try to get gas out is not allowed. Drilling can be done merely to look at the rock structure at the shallow boreholes. Anything else is subject to permission from DETI. Permission must be given by DETI to drill the shallow boreholes as well. It is not a full licence, but permission from DETI is needed.
I will finish by saying, yet again, that there are no licences for fracking at present. If applications come in for licences for fracking, they will go through the whole panoply of regulatory procedures that will happen.
I hope that I have answered some of the questions that have been raised today, because there has been a lot of confusion about the procedure. I hope that it is now clear to everyone in the House.
Steven Agnew(Green)
I thank Mr Allister for his contribution, because he finished where I mean to start. I have in front of me the licence that was granted to Tamboran. It is available on the internet, so anybody can check whether what I am saying is accurate. As was pointed out, the licence allows for some drilling. To suggest that drilling is desktop research is misleading at best. The licence allows for a second exploration well to be drilled in years 4 and 5.
Arlene Foster(DUP)
The Member is wrong. Tamboran has to apply to the Department for a licence to frack in years 4 and 5. It also has to submit a planning application and undergo an environmental impact assessment.
Steven Agnew(Green)
It is outlined in the licence, as the Minister said. There may be further permissions necessary, but it is within Tamboran’s licence. It is a licence that includes fracturing, multiple horizontal legs, flow testing and seismic monitoring. It is on public record, and people can check it if they wish.
For technologies such as hydraulic fracturing, there is a distinct lack of standards. Standards are needed in the UK and internationally to ensure the consistency of safety measures and to guarantee that environmentally damaging or dangerous practices, such as those that have been recorded in the US, do not occur in the UK. Those are not my words but the words of the Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers. Much has been made in the debate of the fact that we have sufficient regulatory provision to ensure that shale gas fracturing is safe. The Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers would not agree.
In fact, Northern Ireland is the only region of these islands that does not have an independent environmental protection agency. So, I am not convinced that we have sufficient regulation. I have a lot of respect for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and the work that it does, but it is an under-resourced part of the Department and it is open to political interference on operational decision-making because it is not an independent body.
When I was elected to the Assembly, I said that I would judge policy on the basis of whether it was good for the economy, good for people and good for the environment, and that is the basis on which I judge the proposals for the extraction of shale gas. Much has been made in the House today of the potential economic and energy benefits to Northern Ireland. With regard to economic benefits, the CEO of Tamboran said that there were 700 jobs in three counties — north and south, one county being Fermanagh — over 20 years and 500 to 800 wells. If we take Fermanagh’s proportion of that out — I accept that these are crude figures — it would equate to approximately 10 jobs a year being created in Fermanagh. Many of those jobs will be temporary, and there is no guarantee that they will be provided to local people. This is a high-tech industry, and I do not know whether we have the skills in Northern Ireland to benefit from those jobs. [Interruption.]
4:00 pm
William Hay(DUP)
Order.
Steven Agnew(Green)
We will put at risk our tourism and agriculture industry in the area. Tourism alone accounts for £25·9 million of economic activity in Fermanagh every year. I know that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board seeks to double tourist revenue by 2020. Fifty-two per cent of businesses in Fermanagh are agriculture-related. Fermanagh boasts nine nature reserves, over 56 areas of special scientific interest and the Marble Arch caves, the first UNESCO-designated geopark in the UK. All that will be put at risk if we allow fracking to take place in Fermanagh. I know that we need jobs, but we do not need so few jobs at such a high cost.
The social impact has been highlighted by the petition that I handed in today, which was signed by almost 2,800 people. Some have dismissed the health concerns and the water security concerns as scaremongering, but I will give some facts. On average, 20 million litres of water will be required for the fracking process to take place, and it is estimated that there is the potential for around 200 wells in County Fermanagh, which is 200 wells needing 20 million litres of water. I said earlier that Tamboran said that it will require to use chemicals in the Republic, and I do not see why there would be any difference here. I asked the Minister whether she would make it a condition of its licence that it did not use chemicals, and she said that that will not be happening.
Mr Frew asked for some facts, and I think that his points were relevant. It has been mentioned that between 500 and 600 chemicals have been used in different processes in the United States. Common chemicals used in the frack fluid include benzene and formaldehyde, both known carcinogens — they present the risk of causing cancer. Even if those chemicals are not used in the fracking fluid, the produced water that comes back will pick up many chemicals underground, including benzene and ethyl benzene — both known carcinogens. It has been confirmed that there is radon under Fermanagh, so there is the potential for radioactive waste. In response to a question, the Environment Minister confirmed to me that we do not have the facilities to deal with that in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]
William Hay(DUP)
Order.
Steven Agnew(Green)
Mike Nesbitt referred to the concerns of GPs in Fermanagh and suggested that, because there was a template letter, GPs in Fermanagh were not capable of conducting their own research and making their own decisions on whether they should send on those letters. He does an incredible disservice to GPs, who have gone through so many years of education and research to become doctors. I think that they are capable of making up their own mind.
Finally, moving on to the environmental impact of this activity, there has been some discussion about whether shale gas is a clean form of energy. Let me make it clear that it is not. In the full life cycle of shale gas, from the drilling to the burning of the gas, there are as many greenhouse gas emissions as from hard coal. It is not a clean form of energy. Joe Byrne asked about the potential for controlling the gas. Dr Ingraffea — I hope that I have pronounced his name correctly — who is from the United States and works in the gas industry, estimates that between 2% and 6% of methane is lost into the atmosphere during the process. Methane is between 20 and 25 times more harmful than CO2 in its impact on climate change. Indeed, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research — [Interruption.]
William Hay(DUP)
Order.
Steven Agnew(Green)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research has indicated that the extraction and use of shale gas is not compatible with UK climate change targets. It was on the Minister’s watch, when she was Minister of the Environment, that Northern Ireland signed up to the UK Climate Change Act 2008. We have responsibility, as part of the UK, to meet our climate change targets.
Arlene Foster(DUP)
We are.
William Hay(DUP)
Order.
Steven Agnew(Green)
The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, with its experience and research, does not believe that we can if we start using shale gas.
Many Members, including Stephen Moutray and Gordon Dunne, talked about the need for alternative energy. As Mr Flanagan pointed out, gas is not an alternative to gas. We have gas in Northern Ireland, and we use it. This is not an alternative. Mr Newton referred to — [Interruption.]
William Hay(DUP)
Order. The Member must be heard.
Steven Agnew(Green)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Newton referred to the potential for shale gas to stabilise prices. The fact is that shale gas is economically viable only because gas prices are high. That is why the technology is coming to the fore.
There is a sense that shale gas will somehow bring energy security to Northern Ireland. It will not be our gas; we do not have a nationalised gas industry in Northern Ireland. The UK Treasury will receive royalties; there is no guarantee of benefits to Northern Ireland. That gas will be sold on the international market, like all other gas.
I move on to the Members who were in favour of the motion. I thank the many Members who contributed to the debate. As Anno Lo and Phil Flanagan pointed out, the people of New York, the people of New Jersey, the people of North Rhine in Germany and those in France and an area of South Africa were all considerably concerned. All have either moratoria or bans on fracking because they were duly concerned. Water pollution and health concerns were touched on by Anna Lo and Joe Byrne. As we have heard today, shale fracturing is safe as long as nothing goes wrong. America has shown that things can go wrong. It has been pointed out that things go wrong with oil as well. That is why I want us to go full steam into renewables. Scotland has a much more progressive renewables agenda. We should follow its example and seek to have 100% renewable electricity by 2030.
William Hay(DUP)
The Member should bring his remarks to a close.
Steven Agnew(Green)
A warning has come from across the Atlantic: we should heed it. It is time to put a moratorium on fracking.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 49; Noes 30.
AYES
Mr Agnew, Ms M Anderson, Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Mr D Bradley, Mr Brady,
Mr Byrne, Mr W Clarke, Mrs Cochrane, Mr Dallat, Mr Dickson, Mr Doherty, Mr Durkan,
Mr Eastwood, Dr Farry, Mr Flanagan, Mr Ford, Ms Gildernew, Mrs D Kelly, Ms Lo, Mr Lunn, Mr Lynch, Mr Lyttle, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCarthy, Mr McCartney, Mr McClarty, Mr McDevitt, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McGlone, Mr M McGuinness, , Mrs McKevitt,
Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMullan, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr Murphy,
Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr Ó hOisín, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr P Ramsey, Ms S Ramsey,
Mr Sheehan.
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Agnew and Ms Lo.
NOES
Mr S Anderson, Mr Bell, Ms P Bradley, Mr Buchanan, Mr T Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Foster, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hamilton,
Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Ms Lewis, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Mr D McIlveen, Miss M McIlveen, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Spratt, Mr Weir.
Tellers for the Noes: Mr S Anderson and Mr Dunne.
The following Members voted in both Lobbies and are therefore not counted in the result: Mr Allister, Mr Copeland, Mr Cree, Mrs Dobson, Mr Elliott, Mr Gardiner,
Mr Kennedy, Mr Kinahan, Mr McCallister, Mr McGimpsey, Mr Nesbitt, Mrs Overend,
Mr Swann.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly believes that a moratorium should be placed on the onshore and offshore exploration, development and production of shale gas by withdrawing licences for hydraulic fracturing (fracking), at least until the publication of a detailed environmental impact assessment into the practice; notes that hydraulic fracturing can put local water sources at risk of contamination; further notes that, amongst a variety of adverse environmental impacts, the process of fracking can cause serious well blowouts, which put both workers and local communities at risk; considers that the production of hard-to-reach fossil fuels is not compatible with efforts to achieve carbon reduction targets; and urges the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to give greater support to the generation of energy from renewable sources instead.
Arlene Foster(DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to reflect on the incident that happened earlier in the debate and pay tribute to the security staff of the Building, who acted swiftly to deal with it. For the record, I understand that it was not caused by a member of the group who came to the House to engage with and, indeed, observe the debate on fracking. I want to thank the security staff for the way in which they dealt with the incident. [Interruption.]
William Hay(DUP)
Order. There should be no applause from the Public Gallery on any issue in the Chamber. Let me say to people in the Public Gallery that, should they continue, I will have the Public Gallery cleared very quickly.
I thank the Member for her point of order. I know that we do not normally refer to the Public Gallery, but, on this occasion, I can understand why she has. Our security staff dealt with the issue very promptly. It is now with the appropriate authorities, and we await their response.
I ask the House to take its ease as we move to the next item of business.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2011-12-06.8.1