PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Fracking Ban - 15 September 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a full ban on fracking.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this debate and giving me the opportunity to lead it. In December 2025, the Minister for Energy told this House that:

“the evidence base is not there at the moment to suggest that low-volume hydraulic fracturing activities have the same associated risks as fracking for shale gas.”—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 10 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 151WH.]

I am leading this debate because I want to challenge that statement and bring the Government’s attention to why I and many others believe that the understanding of fracking that the Minister referred to is not suited for purpose. I want this House to consider the evidence for that argument.

Let me begin with the point that matters most: we do not have a ban on fracking in this country; we have a moratorium, and the two are not the same. A moratorium is a pause, and a pause can be lifted. The previous Energy Secretary told the Labour party conference last autumn that this Government would legislate to ban fracking for good. This Government have been in power for two years, yet I see no indication that a full ban is due. Maybe the Minister will care to correct me, but it seems that this Government are not taking decisive action to stop all fracking activity.

The reason this activity continues is because of a legal loophole, and it is worth being precise about it. The Petroleum Act 1998 defines fracking by the volume of fluid injected: more than 1,000 cubic metres at any single stage, or more than 10,000 cubic metres in total. Stay below those figures and the moratorium simply does not apply. The intent is identical to fracking, and the technique is identical—a company injects fluid at high pressure to fracture rock and release the gas inside—but because the volume is lower, the law treats it as something else entirely and waves it through.

At Burniston, on the edge of the North York moors, Europa Oil & Gas has proposed exactly that—a so-called proppant squeeze—at volumes designed to sit just under the threshold. In correspondence obtained under freedom of information, the company itself referred to the operation as fracking, yet in its planning material it insists that it is not. The label changes, but the drilling rig does not. The Reform Mayor of Scarborough said, “frack ahead”, although the local council voted unanimously against the plans, and the Secretary of State did not choose to overrule that. However, I am concerned about the direction that this is taking.

Before I move on, I want to insert a small caveat: I am supportive of the geothermal sector. Geothermal is a genuinely renewable source of energy. A small number of geothermal cases employ low-volume hydraulic simulation. My case for a permanent ban asks for fracking to be classified by intent, and would therefore ensure that geothermal was not under threat. This is important because the geothermal industry has great potential in this country that has yet to be realised, despite being extensively used in other European countries. I want to be clear that low-volume fracking—as a form of fracking—is something entirely different.

Could the hon. Lady try to clarify that a little? Take an event with a seismicity of one—for ease of maths—with a hydraulic frack for the energy treasure of gas; how is that different from the seismicity of one on a geothermal site? It is the same seismicity. It is the same event. It is scarily called an earthquake, but it is not, for all intents and purposes—it is about the equivalent of moving rapidly from behind one’s desk on a chair. What is the difference between the two?

I would like to clarify that. I am not suggesting that we should measure and judge these things by seismicity, because that is not something that can be predicted in advance. The point is that in one case fossil fuels are being extracted, but that is not the effect with geothermal—it is a different process with a different effect.

North Yorkshire council’s planning committee rejected the Burniston site that the hon. Lady has mentioned not just on seismicity grounds, but because of issues of groundwater pollution, traffic and a whole range of other issues. Although these low-level fracking sites are technically legal, they still have a range of issues for us to deal with.

I quite agree. The hon. Gentleman better explains the point that I was trying to make, which is that other issues, such as the potential for groundwater contamination, are different in the situation of fracking for fossil fuels.

Ministers tell us that the evidence base is not there to show that lower-volume fracking carries the same risk as fracking for shale gas, but I say gently to the Government that the evidence is there, and it is sitting in their own records. The earthquake at Preston New Road that triggered the 2019 moratorium did not follow some enormous injection, but a series of lower-volume stages, every one of which was below the legal threshold. The tremor that shook Lancashire, felt across the area at a magnitude of 2.9, came in the days after a stage that used just 142 cubic metres of fluid. The then Oil and Gas Authority concluded that it was not possible to predict the timing or size of these events. The volumes proposed at Burniston were higher than the volume that caused that earthquake.

This matters well beyond seismicity. It matters for our countryside and for the rural communities and protected landscapes that would host this drilling and gain almost nothing in return. It matters for our waters, as has already been mentioned; parts of Yorkshire were under a hosepipe ban in 2025, yet we are asked to pump scarce water deep underground and accept the risk of contaminating the aquifers that families and farms depend on. It matters for the climate, too. Every new source of onshore gas means more methane, more emissions and a direct collision with the carbon budgets that this House has voted for—not to mention our net zero ambitions.

There are voices—Reform Members among them—who say that the answer to high bills is to return to fossil fuels and to frack our way out of trouble. I understand the appeal of a simple answer, but it is the wrong one. Gas is priced on an international market. Drilling a handful of wells in the English countryside would not move that price, and the companies doing the drilling would sell at whatever the market pays. Fracking would not take a single pound off a family’s bill. What it would do is divide communities, tie up local councils in years of planning battles and lock us into the very fuel whose price swings caused the crisis in the first place. We would be more exposed, so I question their intentions.

Is it not true that fracking is a massive scar on the countryside and is far more visible and disruptive than, for example, an onshore wind turbine?

Absolutely, and I was just about to come to that point. In many cases, the very same people who would argue for fracking would argue for fewer wind farms, solar farms and other renewable energy sources due to their blighting of the countryside. I ask those voices, how is fracking supporting the upkeep of our countryside? How is it better than those other uses of countryside, which would produce clean energy, and how is contaminating our water supply helping anyone?

The honest route to lower bills and real energy security is the one that this country is already capable of taking: cheap, clean, home-grown power. By that I mean renewables, but also low-carbon generation; the prospect of new nuclear at Oldbury in my own constituency shows the part that low-carbon generation can play alongside renewables in a secure system. That is where the jobs are, and that is where the investment should be flowing. That is the future.

My ask of the Minister is a single, clear one. I feel as if this Government may need some clarity. I ask the Minister to commit today to defining fracking by its purpose and effect, not by an arbitrary measure of fluid used, so that every form of hydraulic fracturing is captured, the loophole is closed and the permanent ban that this Government have promised is written into law rather than left in a conference speech and forgotten. Our countryside, our water and our climate deserve nothing less.

I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for securing a debate on this important issue. I first became aware of small-scale fracking when Europa Oil & Gas applied to explore for gas at Burniston, a village just on the edge of the picturesque North York moors in my constituency. I was surprised to discover that companies can still submit applications of that kind. I was surprised that it was not blocked by the moratorium on fracking that was introduced after earthquakes linked to fracking operations in 2019 at Preston New Road in Lancashire. It turns out that that is because UK legislation defines fracking based on fluid volume thresholds—1,000 cubic metres per stage or 10,000 cubic metres in total. That leaves a legal loophole for oil and gas companies to exploit.

Because Europa Oil & Gas’ plans fall below the legal threshold, they are not calling it fracking, but “proppant squeeze” instead. Let me be clear: proppant squeeze is just hydraulic fracturing at lower fluid volumes. The intent and technique are the same. Europa wants to explore for and to extract gas, through causing the rock to fracture by injecting a substance into it at pressure. That is fracking.

There is strong evidence to suggest that small-scale fracking carries the same risks as larger-scale operations, particularly around seismicity. A report recently published by Professor Haszeldine at the University of Edinburgh found that earthquakes from high-volume fracking and low-volume fracking are equally large and equally unpredictable. That echoes findings commissioned by the then Oil and Gas Authority into events at Preston New Road, which also showed that seismic impacts cannot be accurately predicted regardless of fluid volume. Faced with this advice, why would we take the risk of allowing small-scale fracking to continue?

Other environmental concerns with fracking remain, too. They include potential groundwater contamination from methane migration or the chemicals in frack fluid, methane leaks, air pollution, and damage to the landscape. And of course, fracking at any volume leads to more greenhouse gas emissions, which contributes to climate change. After experiencing the hottest summer on record, I hope that the environmental consequences of continued gas extraction are at the forefront of our minds.

In the Labour party manifesto, we made a commitment to ban fracking. Our forthcoming energy independence Bill commits us to doing the same. Unless we implement a full ban on fracking, companies like Europa Oil & Gas will continue to exploit the existing loophole. Rathlin Energy is about to start small-scale fracking at its West Newton site in East Yorkshire—one of 66 current licences across the country.

Our Labour Government talk about banning fracking and safeguarding the places we love. I have the greatest respect for the Minister and appreciate the time that the Department has spent discussing this issue with me, but, respectfully, does he not see that unless the Government act boldly and close the loophole, communities across the country, such as those in West Newton and Burniston, will have fracking operations on their doorstep? These communities love where they live—do they not count? It does not matter to them whether it is a mini-frack or the full-scale version, as the net result is the same: drill pads, drill heads, gas flare and noise 24/7, with lights during the exploration stage and continuous heavy goods vehicle movements.

We cannot say categorically that small-scale fracking is safe for the environment. The Government have called for more evidence on its safety, but the sad truth is that it looks like the evidence will be gathered on the back of another incident like Preston New Road. I do not want that for my community in Burniston, and I am sure other hon. Members and hon. Friends do not want it for theirs.

Unless we legislate to ban all forms of fracking in our upcoming energy independence Bill, our fracking ban will be symbolic rather than material. We have a unique opportunity to show climate leadership. We have an opportunity as a Government to stand up to the frackers, to make our legislation watertight, to safeguard the natural environment, to listen to the concerns in our communities and to meet our climate commitments. By introducing a comprehensive ban based on process and intent, we can finally put an end to fracking once and for all.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this important debate and on her excellent introduction. I am in full solidarity with the communities of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). In 2015, there was the threat of fracking near Bath, so I know exactly what the arguments are and how fearful communities are about it coming to them. We must all stand together to support her and her community to stop fracking.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for a complete and permanent ban on fracking. Fracked fuel is a fossil fuel, which cements our reliance on expensive gas and flies in the face of our net zero commitments. It also flies in the face of commitments to protect our environment.

I do not know who makes the argument that an onshore wind turbine or a solar panel is a scar on our natural environment but that fracking—the biggest scar we can inflict on our communities—is not. We should not be fooled. The gases produced by fracking contribute directly to global warming and climate change, the effects of which are not a distant threat but already taking place. In the UK this summer, 28,000 deaths were linked to extreme heat, wildfires destroyed homes and our countryside, and over 25 million people faced restrictions on their water use. We cannot continue to support the energy of the past; we must urgently replace it.

Perhaps my hon. Friend, like me, saw several screenings of “The People’s Emergency Briefing” over the summer recess. It paints a devastating picture of what will happen if we continue down this route, and that includes fracking. Does she agree that we need a national briefing to educate people on the issue?

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution; I absolutely agree. It is important that people across the country understand why we in Parliament and the UK Government must lead on climate change. Many people are already aware, but a lot of misinformation is being spread around to try to reset the progress we have made. We must not get distracted by the naysayers and the people I call the flat-earthers—I know that is a bit of an insult. This is a science, and we must listen to the science.

Not only does fracking contribute to climate change, but it is very unsustainable in other ways. It demands vast amounts of water, which is completely at odds with public safety and security when droughts are becoming increasingly common. Additionally, as has already been mentioned, the pollutants released from fracking sites affect air and water quality, posing serious health risks to local communities living nearby. Lower-volume fracking is clearly linked to unpredictable earthquakes and poses a serious threat to public safety, yet there are currently multiple proposals for low-volume fracking across Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate has already explained the difference. They cannot be permitted to go ahead.

The current definition of “high-volume fracking” would not even cover the activities of Cuadrilla in the lead-up to the earthquake caused by fracking at its Preston New Road site in Lancashire. That is despite the moratorium being introduced as a consequence of that very earthquake. Fracking is not sustainable and it is not safe. It is incomprehensible that in 2026 it is not banned outright.

The Government’s proposal to end new onshore oil and gas licensing is a welcome step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. It would have no impact on areas that are already licensed for fracking, which would remain covered only by a moratorium that can easily be overturned. It would fail to close the loopholes in the moratorium, where hydraulic fracturing is defined only by high fluid volume thresholds.

The public support a ban on fracking; in fact, when asked to choose, 60% of people would rather have a solar farm nearby than a fracking site—for very good reasons. Labour made its position on fracking clear before it came into power: it pledged in its 2024 manifesto to “ban fracking for good”. Yet now they are in power, the Government seem to have forgotten about their pledge.

The energy independence Bill, as has been mentioned, is an opportunity for the Government to honour their promise and deliver a full ban on fracking. The Bill must do three things. First, it must close the loopholes that allow applications for damaging low-volume fracking and other harmful fracking techniques such as acid fracturing. Secondly, it must introduce a permanent ban in law. That would put an end to the current situation, where fracking is permitted because a Minister simply needs to make a statement to reverse the moratorium. Thirdly, the Bill must ensure that a ban on fracking applies to all areas covered by existing licences.

I urge the Government to act now and introduce a full ban on fracking to protect the security, safety and health of the public and our environment.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this debate. As a keen environmentalist, I will speak in support of a full and permanent ban on fracking.

In my constituency, people care deeply about our shared natural environment. They care about access to nature. They care about protecting the landscapes that define our communities. I see that every time I visit the West Pennine moors and enjoy our local landscapes. Those moors and fields are a place of recreation, reflection and escape, and they are part of our local identity in Bolton West. What they are not is a resource to be gambled with in pursuit of a speculative industry that has never enjoyed public support in my constituency.

Way back in 2015, there were demonstrations against fracking in Horwich after the then Conservative Government granted licences to drill there and in Blackrod, Rivington and Belmont. Many of us will remember even larger demonstrations against fracking in neighbouring Lancashire over the years. Local people consistently turned out in their droves because they were worried about the consequences for their communities, their environment and their quality of life.

It is impossible not to mention the extraordinary events of 2022. The then Prime Minister, Liz Truss, effectively turned a vote on fracking into a confidence vote in her own Government. That evening, fracking extracted her from her job far more effectively than it has ever extracted shale gas. Fracking became a symbol of a political establishment refusing to listen to communities and refusing to recognise where public opinion had already moved.

My own concerns have always been primarily environmental and ecological, and these fears are repeatedly raised to this day by my constituents. Indeed, my friend, Horwich resident and long-standing environmental activist Stuart put it more clearly than I would be able to. He told me that, for him, the biggest problem is the toxic chemicals entering the watercourse. That echoes the sentiment rightly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) earlier in the debate. That captures the heart of the issue. People are worried about the risk of pollution to the water table and the wider environment. Indeed, once groundwater is contaminated, the damage can last for generations.

So let us ask ourselves one simple question today: is fracking really worth it? The reality is that fracking has always asked communities to take environmental risks in exchange for highly uncertain rewards, and the truth is that the country at large has never bought into it.

There are those in my constituency who work in the oil and gas industry and those who are pushing for more solar and other renewables, but I am struck by the fact that fracking is the one area where both sides are likely to find agreement. It is not wanted and it is not supported. Does my hon. Friend also find that common ground around fracking in his constituency? Is it evident that no one wants it there either?

That opposition to fracking across the divide is certainly something that I see in my mailbox in Bolton West.

My constituents know all about the costs of industrial exploitation. Back in the late 19th century, the north-west was a hotbed of industrial extraction. Coalmining in particular left its mark across the moors and surrounding communities in a way that still scars landscapes and undermines ecological wellbeing. We should not spend the 2020s trying to recreate the energy debates of 50 years ago. Instead, we should be embracing the technologies of the future. That is exactly why I proudly stood on Labour’s manifesto commitment to make Britain a clean energy superpower. That is a commitment that this Government are now delivering through their clean power mission and their commitment to legislate for a ban on fracking.

However, the choice is not between fracking and keeping the lights on. The choice is between investing in the industries of the future and clinging to the arguments of the past, and I know which side of that choice my constituents are firmly on. Indeed, just last year, 200 jobs were secured at Hitachi Astemo in Horwich following £100 million of investment. That was investment into the electric vehicle supply chain, turning our back on fracking and embracing the opportunities of the future. That is a powerful vote of confidence in my constituency, because those are exactly the kinds of jobs we should be championing: high-skilled, high-tech jobs that support clean economic growth while driving the transition to the renewable economy of the future, not jobs in speculative drilling or fossil fuel dependency. We should not be reopening arguments that communities settled many years ago.

After successive record-breaking temperatures and growing evidence of man-made climate change, reducing emissions and accelerating the transition to clean power are not optional but essential. A full ban on fracking protects communities and protects our environment. It protects treasured landscapes such as the West Pennine moors and the surrounding fields. It sends a clear signal that Britain’s future lies not beneath the ground in ever-harder-to-reach fossil fuels but in the clean industries, innovation and jobs that will power the decades ahead. For those reasons, I strongly support a full ban on fracking.

Well, this is a fascinating debate, full of nonsense and misinformation. Let us just set the context of what we are talking about, shall we? It is not actually a debate about fracking. It turns out that it is a debate about gas—shale gas, for example. I urge hon. Members in this House and those watching to just ask themselves why everybody in this country is arguing and distressed and concerned about the price of electricity and energy. Why is it that the price of gas in the United States is a mere 20% of the price of gas here in the United Kingdom? Well, I can tell hon. Members: it is because for the last 20-plus years, yes, the United States has been enjoying the benefits of shale gas, which it has extracted through one method, which is called fracking or hydraulic fracking.

Would the hon. Member give us some figures or comparisons of how much fracked fuel we can produce in this country compared with the United States?

I am delighted to assist the hon. Lady, who is clearly not informed whatsoever. We have somewhere between 30 years and 50 years of gas for the whole of the United Kingdom available onshore. In Lincolnshire alone—

Fracked gas?

Yes, exactly. It may pay the hon. Member to listen. In Lincolnshire alone, there is some 10 years of shale gas—a decade’s-worth—for the United Kingdom, and that could generate thousands and thousands of jobs.

The context is very simple. In the United States, fracking has been transformational to the US economy. It is the reason that it has much lower gas prices and much lower electricity prices. In Lincolnshire alone, as I was just explaining, the density of shale gas in the Gainsborough trough is believed to be double that of the most productive shale gas in Pennsylvania of the Marcellus shale. The opportunity is enormous.

Even if hon. Members were to disagree with me completely, which I suspect may be the case, a middle ground might be to say, “Before we make a seismic decision, the answer might be to do a proper test, which could be independently monitored, supervised and checked for, let’s say, a year, or two years”—I am a generous man, of course—“and that can then be verified.” We could do that with a number of different wells using a number of different techniques, because there are indeed numerous different extraction techniques depending on the depth to which one goes. Some 11 techniques can be counted, including low-volume hydraulic fracking, high-volume hydraulic fracking, and acidic oscillation—on and on the list goes. Why would we be so dogmatic, so stubborn and, bluntly, so negligent against the financial interests and prosperity of all our citizens that we would refuse to use this glorious energy treasure that has made the United States so wealthy?

The potential is enormous: tens and tens of billions of investment into our community; tens and tens and tens, and tens and tens, more billions of tax revenue potential, with enormous community benefits.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman thought the summer, while being the hottest on record, was more of a millionaire’s paradise than the awful situation it was for many in our country. Does he not understand the science of climate change that he is encouraging us to continue to aggravate, or is he simply a flat-earther entirely?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but we have to get real here: the climate has changed for millions of years, and it will continue. There is not a scrap of evidence that all of a sudden, we get to net zero, which is a new concept of about a decade, and that will stop climate change. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will come back to the hon. Lady. I am doing well; I am in full flow.

The panel said in its, I think, sixth report that even if we got to net zero tomorrow, it would take somewhere between 200 years in one context and 1,000 years in the other context to make any difference whatsoever to sea level rise—and it did say that with high confidence, which is reassuring. Maybe the smarter thing to do is to adapt to climate change rather than think we can stop it.

Let me come back to the essence of the debate, which is the importance of the decision as to whether we as a nation are prepared to impoverish ourselves by writing off one of the greatest treasure opportunities we have. Almost any other nation in the world that has this energy treasure—quite rightly, quite sensibly, financially and productively—uses that energy treasure. But the mood of this place is, “No, we’re going to impoverish ourselves. We’re not going to use that treasure. We’re going to make people ever poorer because we’re going to insist on putting all our bets on renewable energy.” We keep being told that renewable energy is going to be cheaper and cheaper, but we now know from the experts that even if the price of gas goes to zero, by the time of the next general election our energy bills will be higher because the cost of renewables is going up and up. And guess what? When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, which occasionally happens here in the United Kingdom, we need back-up—it is basic common sense.

The hon. Gentleman has made extraordinary claims about the reserves of shale gas. There are currently no commercially proven reserves of shale gas in the UK, and yet he is suggesting that there are tens of billions at hand just to be plucked. The evidence actually shows that the cost of renewables is going down constantly. I ask him to pay courtesy to the convention of the House that we speak truth in this place and to cite his sources.

Absolutely, I will cite the sources. Look at everybody’s energy bills: they are going up and up, and—

No, the sources for your claims about reserves—

Order. The hon. Lady did point out the conventions and courtesies of the House. She has to ask the hon. Member if he will give way. It might be helpful for everybody if I add that interventions should be through the Chair. Please do not face the back of the Chamber. It makes it incredibly hard for the microphones to pick up comments and, indeed, it is quite discourteous to the Chair to turn your back on me.

I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Lady asks a fair question as to the evidence. The evidence is from the experts I have just cited, who say that even if the price of gas goes to zero, our energy bills are going up and up. The next bit of evidence—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will carry on, because I am in full flow.

I want to clarify the question I actually asked.

I give way to the hon. Lady.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am requesting that he cites his sources for the claims he has made as to the reserves of shale gas in this country.

I was just coming on to that. The British Geological Survey has, for example, made clear estimates that there are vast sums.

No!

No, there have been tests into the Gainsborough trough, which is why I made the claim about the density. Then, of course, there is the evidence of successful businesspeople who invested hundreds of millions of pounds because they had done the geological work and realised that there is a huge opportunity, and they are still there. That is the evidence, because when people are prepared to invest sums of money, we know that they have done the research.

I come back to this point. It is gross negligence of the highest order—frankly, probably of a criminal order—to refuse to even try, and to not even say, “Okay Richard, I disagree with you, but let’s have an independent test over a couple of years at a couple of different sites, using a couple of different techniques.” Surely that would be the middle ground, because in the event that those on my side of the debate are correct and those on the other side of the debate are incorrect, we would then have taken advantage of this great opportunity.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again just once more?

I am delighted to give way to the hon. Lady.

In the spirit of co-operation, even if we did this test, could he explain the damage and disruption that would be caused to communities in the UK if we tried on the scale that the US has done, where there are vast amounts of empty country with no people disrupted by fracking? Can he explain how that compares and how disruptive it would be for our communities in the UK?

I would be delighted to. The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. There are some 20 million people in the United States who live within 1 mile of fracking pads, shale gas pads or whatever one might wish to call them. I have seen the numerous nodding donkeys—oil drilling wells—in my county of Lincolnshire. You would not know they are there because they are hidden behind trees. Contrary to what some Members have said in the debate, the reality is that once a shale gas well is drilled, you barely know it exists. A well is a couple of metres high and there can be 10 pads on a site that is the size of about two football pitches—behind trees, so no one would even know that they are there.

The misinformation, the false information and the deliberate nonsense being peddled is depriving this great country of the opportunity to reduce our bills. If we carry on as we are, then our bills will be going up and up and up. Indeed, just today, we have heard that the forecast increase in bills for, I think, January will be at least 15%. We should at least have the courage to explore some alternatives.

I need to deal with the whole issue of seismicity—some people call it “earthquakes”—which is a very scary-sounding thing. At the Preston New Road site near Blackpool, there was a limit of just 0.5 on the Richter scale. Now, because the Richter scale is logarithmic, 0.5 is the equivalent of one of the Clerks of the House gently moving their chair backwards and standing up as they leave at the end of the day—that is 0.5. Hon. Members might like to imagine standing up with a melon in their hand, holding it to shoulder height and then dropping it in front of them—that would be about 1.5 on the Richter scale. A bus driving past your house would be in the order of 2.5, which is about the equivalent of the sort of limits applied to construction sites. We need some appropriate context and understanding as to the realities of the situation.

The opportunities here must be worth at least exploring. I fully accept that there are those who have a different view to me on issues around renewables, but we can all agree that diversity can be a wonderful thing—diversity of technologies and sources. Maybe one day—I am 62, Madam Deputy Speaker, so maybe after I am long dead—renewables might be cheaper, but at the moment that is not the evidence. The evidence in the United States is that shale gas is driving bills all the way down.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is somewhat a voice in the wilderness? Fracking is unpopular with Reform voters—they do not want it. I am speaking in this debate to represent my constituents in Scarborough and Whitby, but can he honestly say that he is doing the same for his in Boston and Skegness?

I can absolutely say that to the hon. Lady and to the good constituents across Lincolnshire. Rather than arrogantly in this place just thinking, “We’re going to ban this process across the whole of the United Kingdom,” given that the new Prime Minister is keen on devolution, maybe this decision could be devolved to individual counties that have the energy treasure? Maybe there will be the joy of Lincolnshire gas for Lincolnshire jobs for Lincolnshire growth? It is like a patriotic dream in the great county of Lincolnshire.

If such a decision were devolved and, even in a devolved world, the entire country said, “We do not want fracking in all of our devolved places,” how would the hon. Gentleman feel about it then?

At least I would have put forward my argument to everybody and people would have had an individual choice, as opposed to what feels to me like an overarching umbrella of “No! You naughty, naughty children—you must not consider this,” even though the evidence around world is that, actually, where there is cheap gas, guess what? There is higher GDP growth per person.

It is so important that people understand this. In the ’80s and ’90s, our energy use per person increased by some 20%, but in the last 20 years our energy use per person has tragically declined by some 20%. Meanwhile, our GDP per person has collapsed: in the ’80s and ’90s growth in GDP was over 3% per person per year, but now it is just about 0.5% per person per year. Maybe there is a direct link between the growth in electricity and energy prices because of renewables in the past 10 to 15 years and the decline in growth?

Before this House considers a full ban, I feel that it has not properly explored all the options and its ability to do an impact assessment—a popular phrase in this place. Let us have an impact assessment by having some independently monitored and supervised shale gas wells using different techniques and at different depths. With that full information, this House could then come back and make a decision to devolve or to make a national decision. I will conclude there.

It is 100 days until Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in the last 15 to 20 minutes we have just had a little glimpse into pantomime season.

Let me move on to business. Decades of Governments taking wrong political decisions have made climate change not just an environmental emergency, but a crisis rooted in social and economic inequality. Major oil and gas corporations made nearly $93 billion in profits in the second quarter of 2026. Saudi Aramco made $33 billion in net income. ExxonMobil made $14.5 billion in profit. Shell’s net income was just under $10 billion, and BP made quarterly profits of nearly $6 billion. This is an international oligarchy benefiting from war and conflict, holding Government and citizens hostage just so that record profits can be made. That rampant capitalism has created dire economic inequality and growing poverty, and it is ultimately leading to climate destruction.

Companies that want to frack care only about making profit and pursuing shareholder dividends; they certainly do not care about workers or communities. The need for a change in political direction could not be greater. Climate protection, environmental sustainability and the provision of a genuinely just transition for workers and communities all demand the restructuring of our economy. We absolutely do not need fracking; we need a green industrial revolution, and Grangemouth in my constituency is the ideal location to house it.

I am in complete agreement with the new Prime Minister’s diagnosis of the societal consequences of mass deindustrialisation and deregulation. We have seen working-class communities and ex-industrial heartlands decimated. I have been heartened in these last couple of weeks that the Prime Minister has made enthusiastic contributions at the Dispatch Box about a future for sustainable aviation fuel in Grangemouth.

My hon. Friend makes a good point about renewables at Grangemouth. Does he agree that the regional economic potential of the Forth valley, which includes my constituency, has Grangemouth as a key component? It is huge. Fracking is not the future that Grangemouth, the Forth valley or the wider country wants or supports.

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is 100% correct. That is exactly the sort of action we all need at Grangemouth and in the wider Forth valley area, which he so ably represents.

Let me focus just on my community, which has been the victim of corporations amassing phenomenal wealth on the back of the talent and skill of workers. Those corporations then decide to move on, which means mass redundancies, and leave behind an asset-stripped community. I say to the Minister that our Labour Government have the chance to change that. Let us move away from fossil fuels and fracking and instead accelerate building the renewables industry in Grangemouth. Let us use state funds, such as the £200 million dedicated from the National Wealth Fund and set aside to finance the green industrial revolution. Quite frankly, that money has sat untouched for far too long.

We could do something amazing in Grangemouth. We could combine the pressing need of the environmental agenda that is upon us with providing genuine social justice. Now it is time for a little more socialism: the Government could take some form of ownership of these new industries, which is a popular policy among the general public. We could create new, green, well-paid, secure jobs, and apprenticeships that would transform the life chances of local young people. With public ownership, we could reinvest profits back into the local Grangemouth community, regenerating and re-energising life in the town and lifting living standards for generations to come. That is the sort of corporate social responsibility that has been so missing in recent times from Grangemouth industry.

I have said many times—and you have heard me say this many times, Madam Deputy Speaker—that Grangemouth is a blank canvas for us to build something truly special. The crucial question is: what kind of country do we want to live in? Is it one that continues to allow oligarchs and international capital to exploit people, place and planet, or do we use politics—our opportunity in government—to be bold and transformative? I say to the Minister: let us build Grangemouth for the future in the image of a Labour Government who want the best for workers and communities, let us make Grangemouth the example—the shining example—of what can be done and let us do it quickly.

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who made a passionate and utterly convincing case for the need for a green energy revolution and the benefits it would provide not only environmentally, but socially for the communities we are here to represent. We have heard fantastic arguments from across the House for a full ban on fracking. It is not just about the earthquake risks and the environmental damage to local communities, or because it is completely publicly unpopular, as the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) pointed out. British citizens do not want fracking, and banning fracking fully is a very popular policy. Fundamentally, however, there is one key reason why we must have a full ban on fracking, which is that we must keep fossil fuels in the ground. We know that we live in a hugely warming world.

Fossil fuels are traded globally. If we open up new production of fossil fuels, the reality is that that will do nothing for bills, do almost nothing for energy security and be a complete distraction from the investments we must make in the transition to the clean, green, renewable energy future that is our only hope of a sustainable economy not just in the long term, but in the short and medium terms. These are the industries of the future, and people who argue that we should continue to invest in typewriters during the era of the personal computer or continue to invest in horses and carriages during the era of the car are simply stuck in the past. We cannot continue to have our heads in the sand.

Talking of having heads in the sand, I think the hon. Lady has just agreed that it would be better to send our money overseas, send our skills overseas and send our jobs overseas, and to literally be impoverished in a tent on a sandbag with our heads in the sand. Is that really the future she wants?

No, that is a complete mischaracterisation of my argument. We know, for example, that Jackdaw would generate 27 jobs—the number of people who fit on the top of a double-decker bus.

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. I can give the hon. Member the reference, unlike for the extraordinary statistics he cited in his speech, which apparently have no basis in actual evidence. Fundamentally, we have to stop pouring fossil fuel on the fire of the climate crisis, and that means we need a full ban on fracking.

Is it not true that, in the end, this is a choice? It is not the case that we invest large amounts of public money in the transition to net zero and nothing in the oil and gas industry. Is it not true that our energy bills are subsidised, and that we are subsidising the oil and gas industry? It is therefore a distraction to say, “Renewables are very expensive, so we need to subsidise them, whereas oil and gas are not expensive.” That argument is completely wrong, because we publicly subsidise oil and gas.

It is indeed true that there is considerable public subsidy for oil and gas, as well as revenues from the windfall taxes. As the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth pointed out, the fossil fuel companies are making tens of billions of pounds in profit, which is raked in from consumers.

Fundamentally, renewables are the cheap, clean, green energy of the future, and we need to shift in that direction as quickly as possible. We are here talking about fracking, but there is no commercially viable shale gas reserve in the entirety of the UK.

Nonsense!

No, the argument that there is commercially viable production is a nonsense. The hon. Member should look at the information from the British Geological Survey.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and several other people, so I will move to my conclusion.

Fundamentally, we are living in a burning world. The 11 hottest years on record were the past 11 years. The three hottest years on record were the past three years. The trajectory is going up and up, and this is not just a question of graphs on paper and reports from the World Meteorological Organisation; we are feeling it in our communities. The Prime Minister, when he considers decisions on things like fracking, should listen to communities in places such as Stourbridge, West Sussex and Stoke-on-Trent, where people have had their homes burned by wildfires that have been supercharged by the climate change that is already built in. It would be utterly irresponsible to pour yet more fuel on the fire of climate crisis.

We need to recognise the reality that is hitting us in the face: a barrelling and accelerating climate crisis. We need to do everything we can to change direction, and the very least of those things has to be a full ban on fracking. Can the Minister confirm that when the energy independence Bill comes to this House after the recess, it will include a fulfilment of the Government’s previous promise to implement a full and statutory ban on fracking that cannot simply be overturned by ministerial diktat? Will he apply the ban to existing licences? We have to leave fossil fuels in the ground and supercharge our transition to the green, clean energy revolution, which is the only fundamental basis for a sustainable and prosperous future for all of the UK.

That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for securing this vital debate with the backing of the Backbench Business Committee.

I am very far from being an elder of this House, but I am among the minority of Members who saw the end of the Liz Truss premiership during the last Parliament. That period is most associated with the Truss-Kwarteng mini-Budget, but as the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) pointed out, it should really go down in history for its association with fracking. What few people recall is that the Truss era fractured, gave out volatile gases and combusted on 19 October 2022 with a Conservative party rebellion over the Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill. Forty Conservative MPs did not vote with their Government against an Opposition motion to ban fracking. Some Conservative MPs abstained because they were not in the House, but others abstained as a matter of principle, and I commend them. They included the former Minister Chris Skidmore, who was one of those principled MPs who would never vote in support of such a proposal. I want to set out why the rebels were right. It is fair to say that the moratorium is insufficient on two grounds: first because it is inadequate, and secondly because of climate change more broadly.

The moratorium came into effect in 2019 after serious concerns were raised about how fracking could cause damage to nature and our communities. However, a ban might not cover all forms of fracking and could potentially leave significant loopholes if that is not addressed. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) made an excellent speech, and I completely agree with her that at the moment we see the exclusion of small-scale fracking, often referred to as proppant squeeze. The guidelines in the Petroleum Act 1998 are outdated, defining the fracturing of rock for shale gas as involving

“the injection of…more than 1,000 cubic metres of fluid at each stage…of the hydraulic fracturing”.

We need that loophole to be closed and a proper ban to be introduced.

In 2019 the Preston New Road fracking site in Lancashire recorded more than 120 seismic events. The British Geological Survey typically detects between 200 and 300 earthquakes across the country across the whole year. Before the fracking moratorium came into effect, drilling licences over shale gas reserves were issued across 127 constituencies in England and Wales, and there is a risk that communities will suffer from not just the seismic activity, but the polluted groundwater and the damage to natural habitats that flows from it. A full ban on fracking would provide certainty to our communities. The Minister for Energy has previously argued that the Government would need “objective evidence” in order to close those loopholes and include low-volume fracking in the ban. What additional evidence do the Government need?

There is large support in this country for a full ban on fracking—almost half the country believes we should not be fracking, and less than 30% of the British population support it. It can lead to water scarcity and risks polluting our air, our soil, our health and our biodiversity. Green space and nature are an intrinsic part of life in the UK, and we should be protecting our wildlife with everything we have. Ministers have previously suggested that all forms of fracking would be considered within the scope of a ban, and the former Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), told the 2025 Labour party conference:

“Let’s ban fracking and send the frackers packing.”

I welcome the point made by the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who reminded us of some of the traditional Labour arguments about social justice, but also that they could apply to creating new jobs in new industries.

What the public do support is action to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change. Eight in 10 people say that they are concerned about climate change—they want a transition to clean energy. In mid and east Devon, protecting our natural environment is a priority for thousands of people who have corresponded with me on the subject. Reports of nature in decline, and of the loss of our precious wildlife and biodiversity, are very concerning to them. I hope that this debate will not only protect communities from the damage of fracking now but, in a small way, help to protect future generations from the worst impacts of climate change. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) talked about the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground. We have just seen the hottest average summer temperatures on record, which are around 130 times more likely because of human-induced climate change.

Last year, 47% of all the electricity generated in the UK was generated from renewable sources. That represents a fourfold increase in renewables since 2012, far in advance of the pace of progress that was forecast. Yes, we will continue to need some oil and gas in the years to come, but why would anyone want us to hitch ourselves to the slow wagons—of which fracking is one—as other countries gallop away behind the technologies of the future?

I know that this is a local matter for the hon. Member, so he will be interested in my response. The Liberal Democrats are concerned about emissions resulting from the greater extraction of fossil fuels, both in UK waters and around the world. For oil in particular, the extraction exercise is pointless, given that we are exporting it so that other countries can refine it and take profits from it.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) referred to a similar point, and he made repeated references to treasure. For those who know the story “Treasure Island”, he is the Squire John Trelawney of this House: a rich landowner who pays for the ship, but talks too much and trusts the wrong people.

There is a real danger that investment in fracking will be a catastrophic mistake, as the fuels, facilities and resources become stranded assets. There is a real risk that they will lose their value prematurely as the tide of renewable technology advances around them. To finish where I started, I am concerned about the Conservative party’s journey towards political extinction. Polling suggests that support for any fracking is a complete misreading of where our constituents are. We Liberal Democrats could quietly gloat that the Conservative party has misread the room and enjoy the electoral dividends that that brings, but we would much rather that it returned to the consensus. Climate change is one of the gravest issues that our generation of politicians has been sent to this House to tackle. Let us not make a catastrophic mistake.

I call the shadow Minister.

May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing today’s debate? As we have heard in a number of speeches today, including from the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) and others, there are a range of strongly held views about fracking. Those are not least concerns about the distinction between high and low-volume fracking, the environmental impacts, seismic activity and the wider impacts of onshore gas production on local communities. I start by acknowledging that view. Local communities, particularly rural communities, too often find themselves the hosts for onshore infrastructure, whether that is for energy, mining or transport projects. It is critical that these communities have a say, should any proposals for fracking projects come forward.

There are, as we have heard, mixed views on the suitability and capability of onshore fracking in the UK, so instead of us here deciding whether the UK has viable reserves that can be fracked, I will instead touch on two broader principles that we should all be considering when discussing not just fracking, but any industry.

The shadow Minister is talking about principles, and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) has reminded us of some principled Conservative Back Benchers who rebelled against the Liz Truss Government to block plans for fracking. We have also heard the Leader of the Opposition’s view that any Conservative who wishes to stand as an MP for her party must reject net zero. Can the Minister confirm whether Conservative MPs who are opposed to fracking are welcome in the Leader of the Opposition’s Conservative party?

After that very long intervention, we finally got to the point. We are not opposed to net zero; we are opposed to a 2050 net zero target, which makes the country weaker and poorer and costs jobs, particularly in my constituency in north-east Scotland.

Returning to the principles that I was talking about, it is right that, where possible, countries utilise their own resources. That is a fundamental part of a country’s national security. Whether it is jobs, investment, industrial capability or resource security, ensuring a domestic supply of crucial materials and products should be a concern for all Governments. That is becoming ever more pressing in a world that is increasingly uncertain, and where the flow of goods and products is becoming less predictable than we have known for decades.

The second principle, which I think only one Member touched on today, is market forces. It is not for us sitting here to tell the market whether an industry is commercially viable. Private companies with private money or bank financing looking to invest in a range of competing opportunities will decide that. The reason I mention this is relevant, because whether fracking is or is not banned is only half the story. If it is permitted but companies cannot make it viable, it will not happen, and that is a genuine concern. The amount of reserves we have in the UK and the viability of producing them remain an open question.

On that point, surely the fact that companies have already invested more than £200 million in the potential for shale gas onshore proves that they believe the reserves are very considerable.

As I have said, private companies will invest where they see opportunities. They will risk their money how they want, and it is up to them to either gain or lose in the investments that they make.

A secure domestic supply of gas is a crucial consideration when it comes to our energy security. I want to see the UK safeguarded with a domestic supply of gas, which we use and need every day. However, there is a viable gas source that does not need onshore fracking, a source that has been producing in the North sea and safely entering our gas grid for decades. Today we are discussing whether fracking should be banned, but we should be more concerned about the Government’s hostile policies when it comes to North sea oil and gas production.

Let us take Jackdaw, a gasfield that could produce enough gas to power 1.4 million homes in the UK this winter—about 6% of our gas needs. Those who are worried about onshore fracking should reflect on the fact that there is a choice here, because they cannot be against all sources of gas. Would they prefer gas from Jackdaw or another North sea gasfield, gas from onshore fracked resources, or imports of liquefied natural gas? The option is not “no gas”; it is just a question of where the gas comes from.

Is it not true that delaying the transition—the hon. Lady does not want to accept a delay until 2050, but whatever the delay may be—will make energy more expensive for our citizens? Is it therefore not highly irresponsible to delay something that we need when it will cost our citizens more in the long term?

What is important here is the reality and, as the Prime Minister said, being pragmatic. Some 24 million homes in the UK use gas, and that situation cannot change overnight. Whether or not we ban our own gas, that need does not change. The demand is what is important, not the supply. The demand is what will, or will not, dictate any sort of target or progression to other energy sources.

I think the crucial question hanging over us in this debate is “Why?” Why is there a desire for a full fracking ban? Is it a concern about the environment—about seismic activity? Yes, I am sure that is part of it, but I expect it is more a continuation of the hostile attitude—an attitude to which we have become all too accustomed—towards UK oil and gas production. Let us put the merits of fracking as a means of production to one side. It cannot, or at least should not, be denied that the UK’s producing its own resources where at all possible—be they gas, oil, food, cement or steel; the list goes on—is a good thing. It is good for jobs, good for skills, good for investment, good for security of supply, good for industrialisation, and good for national security.

If the domestic production of gas is so fantastic for the UK economy, why did successive Conservative Governments massively constrain the amount of gas that can be stored in this country to prevent the huge fluctuations in price that we see?

Because, unlike this Labour Government, we were not banning new production from the North sea, so we would have had a flow of gas from there.

Let us be serious. No one who has expressed concern today about the loophole in the moratorium needs to fear, because there is no way that this Labour Government are going to use any loophole that might mean more UK gas production. Their record offshore shows that their plan is incoherent and self-defeating. They would prefer to ban new licences to rely on more imports. They would prefer to tax the industry so highly that investment is drying up and moving abroad at the expense of jobs and livelihoods here in the UK. They would prefer to pay Norway £20 billion every year to import gas from there instead of from the North sea. Just today, they have decided to put votes in a by-election ahead of permitting Jackdaw, and presumably Rosebank, before those results.

And what is the result of all that? The UK will import more LNG, which is more carbon intensive and which, with relevance to this debate, largely derives from fracked shale gas. So it is not true to say that Labour, the Liberal Democrats or the Greens oppose fracking, the same as it is not true to say that they oppose oil and gas. What they oppose is producing gas here in the UK, and therefore they oppose oil and gas jobs here in the UK.

Yes, this debate today is about fracking, but the more pressing issue is protecting the UK’s established oil and gas sector: its jobs, its supply chain and the expertise that is disappearing. The steps the Government can take to do that are simple; indeed, the Conservatives have set them out many times. We must end the ban on new licences, permit Jackdaw and Rosebank, end the energy profits levy and get Britain drilling again.

I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for bringing this debate to the House this afternoon, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

After the hottest summer on record, I would argue that the need for climate action is more acute than ever. We have seen really visibly this summer why it is so necessary, so I have to start by saying that what we have heard from the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) astounds me. He asked the question: who would forgive us? The question I would put back to him is this: who will forgive us if we, as he has done, deny the climate science? Who will forgive us if we fail to plan for a transition that is happening now—not in years to come—and on which work and jobs rely? And who will forgive us if we pass on to our children, grandchildren and the next generation a world that is worse than the one we inherited? To me, that is the question that sits at the heart of this debate. There may be parts of the debate where we disagree—even those of us who agree on the climate science—but on the basics of climate science, there is much that we can agree on.

It is important that the House, industry, communities and the wider public have clarity on the Government’s position on this issue, the evidence base behind it and the safeguards that apply, so let me remind the House of our position. It comes in three parts: first, a clear commitment to ban fracking for shale gas; secondly, the distinction between that activity and low-volume hydraulic fracturing techniques used in conventional oil and gas operations, and, as the hon. Lady acknowledged in her speech, other industries such as geothermal; and thirdly, the broader reality that the benefits of getting off the fossil fuel rollercoaster significantly outweigh the cost, with clean energy providing cheaper power, travel and homes for our country.

The Government have been clear in our commitment to ban hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, commonly known as fracking. There is currently no fracking for shale gas anywhere in the United Kingdom. Many Members across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), asked about the energy independence Bill. The Bill was announced in the King’s Speech and will meet our commitment to not issue new licences to explore new fields—onshore and offshore—including those that could be used for fracking for shale gas. That will deliver on our commitment in law to ban fracking.

The effective moratorium on fracking for shale gas in England remains in place for existing licences because of concerns about the prediction and management of induced seismicity. Those concerns are not minor and not theoretical. In all three instances of fracking for shale gas in the UK, there was evidence of induced seismicity, including earthquakes strong enough to be felt by surrounding communities. Where communities have concerns about safety, environmental protection and local impacts, the Government have a responsibility to proceed cautiously and transparently.

Fracking for shale gas is used where gas is located within very small pores of shale rock and it cannot be extracted without repeatedly fracturing the rock. It typically requires injecting high volumes of fluid and propane at high pressure and at multiple points in a horizontal well to create high numbers of fractures extending hundreds of metres into the shale.

Does the Minister agree that not only did the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) exaggerate the amount of available gas that might be in the UK—less than 10% of such gas is usually recovered, and that normally trails off after a year—but that such gas is not actually pulled out of the ground by nodding donkeys? Typically, a structure called a Christmas tree is used, not the nodding donkeys described by the hon. Gentleman.

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. I would also say that we are not Pennsylvania or Texas; we are the United Kingdom, and we will operate on the basis of our national interest, energy security and national security.

The process of high-impact fracking can lead to seismic activity that can be felt on the surface. It differs considerably from the proppant squeeze used in conventional gas extraction and in geothermal, which uses smaller amounts of fluid to improve the production rate of gas in non-shale rock types. The Government’s commitment is directed at hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, where the combination of geology, the scale of the fracturing network, the fluid volume and the operational design has raised specific concerns.

I will say a little more about some of the other issues raised by hon. Members. We recognise that there are some concerns about low-volume hydraulic fracturing techniques, such as proppant or acid squeezes used in conventional, non-shale oil and gas operations. I am at pains to say that this is not the same as hydraulic fracturing for shale gas extraction, and it is not associated with the same safety issues.

Does the Minister accept that using proppant squeeze is a loophole, because the industry has started using it to get round the moratorium, and therefore it needs to be included in any ban?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. In her introduction to the debate, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate raised the point about geothermal. The specific issues relating to high-intensity hydraulic fracturing that we have seen have been in shale, not in the types of fracturing used in conventional oil and gas, which are also used in geothermal. There has been some division across the House this afternoon: there was a suggestion from the Liberal Democrat Benches that we use a definition linked only to oil and gas, thus keeping geothermal out of it; there were suggestions from elsewhere that a full ban may also impact on uses such as geothermal. That points to why we have to be careful and specific about what it is we are trying to achieve.

Low-volume hydraulic fracturing has been happening in the UK for decades. It has been used not just in respect of oil and gas but in the water industry and geothermal. In that time, there has been no clear evidence that it induces seismicity that can be felt on the surface. Low-volume hydraulic fracturing operations are routinely used in conventional oil and gas operations. They target different types of rocks, create fractures close to the wellbore and are typically short, single-stage operations, as opposed to the continuous fracturing characteristic of shale gas fracking.

In practical terms, those operations are limited in scale and purpose. They are designed to improve flow from an existing conventional reservoir, not to fracture large areas of shale rock. They do not involve the same high-volume, multi-stage process associated with shale gas fracking, and they have not produced the same evidence of induced seismicity. Furthermore, all such activities are subject to a robust regulatory regime.

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke about safety. Operators must obtain planning permission, environmental permits and health and safety approvals before proceeding, covering issues such as groundwater protection, management of emissions, handling of fluids and waste, and monitoring requirements. Where health and safety approvals are required, operators must meet the standards expected for well integrity and operational safety. Planning processes also provide a route for local impacts to be considered before activities proceed. We recognise the strong interest that Members expressed in the Burniston application, for which the planning authority has now refused permission.

Let me be absolutely clear: there is no loophole and no hidden route by which shale gas fracking can resume. The evidence-based policy position is clear, the effective moratorium remains in place, and the Government will not issue new onshore licences in England, including those that could be used for fracking for shale gas. That is the reassurance that communities across the country are entitled to hear.

Finally, I will turn to the wider arguments sometimes made about energy security and domestic production. Some, like the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness, who spent his speech denying the climate science, suggest that fracking for shale gas would strengthen our energy independence or reduce consumer bills. However, oil and gas are traded on the international markets, as has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, and increasing domestic production would not shield consumers from global price volatility.

I just need to clarify for the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) that when I referred to nodding donkeys, I specifically said oil wells. I hope that helps him.

With regard to the price of gas, can the Minister explain why the wholesale price of gas in the United States is 80% cheaper than the wholesale price in the United Kingdom? That completely undermines what he has just said. The Minister has inadvertently misled the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Absolutely not. As I said a moment ago, we are not the United States; we are not Pennsylvania or Texas. It is a different energy market. There is nothing to suggest that the extraction of shale gas in this country would reduce the cost of energy, just as there is no evidence to suggest that extracting more oil and gas from the North sea would reduce the cost of energy, if that is the point the hon. Gentleman was making.

That is a different argument to the one the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness was making. What is clear is that it will not directly reduce the cost of energy in this country.

Recent years have shown that the answer is not to double down on fossil fuel production, but to reduce our dependence on those markets over time through clean, home-grown energy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) set out in his speech. That will ensure that our oil and gas workers and supply chains benefit from the clean energy transition and that we support prosperity, jobs, economic growth, communities and energy security. This Government’s approach is both clear and pragmatic: ending new licences and introducing transitional energy certificates, maintaining the effective moratorium and accelerating the transition to clean, home-grown energy that improves resilience, supports jobs, reduces emissions and gives consumers greater protections from global price shocks.

The House should be in no doubt. Our position is evidence based, and it is clear: we will not issue new onshore licences in England, and we will maintain the effective moratorium on fracking for shale gas, because the concerns that led to it have not been resolved. Together, these measures will ensure that fracking for shale gas is not taking place in England. We will continue to ensure that conventional oil and gas activities are properly distinguished, properly regulated and properly scrutinised. That is the responsible course of action for communities, for consumers and for our climate commitments, and for the country’s long-term energy security.

I would like to thank all the Back Benchers who have spoken in this debate. When the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) talked about how proppant squeeze is being used for fracking, I was minded to say “a rose by any other name”, but fracking is certainly not sweet. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and the hon. Members for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) all made good arguments about climate change and other environmental concerns, and the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) set out the need for a green industrial revolution.

I do not have time to dissect in detail the speech made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). I am concerned that he may be suffering from amnesia. He seems to think that the recognition of the need for climate action is new, when it was in fact recognised back in the 1980s, including by such left-wing icons as Margaret Thatcher. He seems to have forgotten about the decades of testing on fracking that have already taken place. He either refuses to admit or does not realise that the geological situation in America is vastly different as well. Shale gas in the UK is deeper, is faulted and is contained in much more complex geological settings.

Fracking will never shift a price set on global markets and it will never be worth the earthquakes, the polluted water and the broken trust it leaves behind. This country was promised an end to fracking—it is time to deliver it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a full ban on fracking.