Claire Young highlights the legal loophole that allows fracking below certain fluid volume thresholds and the potential for groundwater contamination, traffic issues, and impacts on rural communities and protected landscapes. She also argues that fracking does not provide a solution to high energy bills and instead advocates for cheap, clean, home-grown power through renewables and low-carbon generation.

Richard Tice asks for clarification on the difference between seismic events caused by fracking for gas and those caused by geothermal activities, questioning the distinction between the two.

Alex Sobel mentions that North Yorkshire council's planning committee rejected the Burniston site not just on seismicity grounds, but also due to issues of groundwater pollution, traffic, and other concerns, highlighting the broader issues associated with fracking sites.

Wera Hobhouse argues that fracking is a significant scar on the countryside and is more disruptive and visible than onshore wind turbines, emphasising the environmental impact and visual intrusion of fracking sites.

Alison Hume expressed her concern over small-scale fracking operations in her constituency, particularly the case of Europa Oil & Gas applying to explore for gas at Burniston, which falls under the legal loophole. She emphasised that such operations carry the same risks as larger-scale fracking, including seismicity and environmental damage, and called for a full ban on fracking to protect communities and the environment.

Wera Hobhouse supported the call for a complete ban on fracking, emphasising its contribution to climate change and its unsustainable nature. She highlighted the risks associated with low-volume fracking, including water demands and health impacts on local communities, and urged the Government to close the loopholes in the moratorium and introduce a permanent ban on fracking.

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 and protecting landscapes. The local community consistently demonstrated against fracking due to concerns over its environmental impact. The opposition to fracking is evident across the constituency, with constituents worried about pollution to the water table and the environment. The reality is that fracking has always asked communities to take environmental risks for uncertain rewards. The country at large has never fully supported fracking. My constituents know all about the costs of industrial exploitation, which is why we should embrace clean energy technologies for the future. The choice is between investing in future industries and clinging to past arguments. A full ban on fracking protects communities and the environment, sending a signal that Britain’s future lies in clean industries and innovation.

This is a debate about shale gas, which has been transformational to the US economy with much lower gas and electricity prices. In the UK, there is somewhere between 30 to 50 years of gas available onshore. We should consider conducting a proper test, independently monitored and checked for up to two years, to verify the potential benefits. The potential of shale gas is enormous, with tens of billions of investment and tax revenue, and community benefits. Climate change has happened for millions of years and will continue, and there is no evidence that net zero will stop it. We should adapt to climate change rather than think we can stop it. The mood in this place is to impoverish ourselves by refusing to use the energy treasure we have. We are putting all our bets on renewable energy, which is becoming more expensive, and we need backup when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.

Caroline Nokes intervened to clarify the question she asked and requested that the speaker cite his sources for claims about shale gas reserves in the country.

Ellie Chowns intervened to ask for the hon. Gentleman to cite his sources for the claims about shale gas reserves.

Wera Hobhouse intervened to question the damage and disruption that would be caused to UK communities if fracking were to be attempted on the scale seen in the US, comparing the impact to the UK context.

Alison Hume intervened to question the hon. Gentleman's representation of his constituents in light of the unpopularity of fracking among Reform voters, suggesting that he might be a voice in the wilderness.

Chris Kane intervened to ask how the hon. Gentleman would feel if the entire country decided against fracking in their devolved places.

Chowns argued that the continued production of fossil fuels is detrimental to the environment and the economy, and she urged the Government to implement a full statutory ban on fracking when the energy independence Bill comes to the House. She also emphasised the urgency of the climate crisis and the importance of listening to communities affected by climate change.

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. 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 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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

Acknowledges the range of views on fracking, emphasising the importance of national security through the use of domestic resources and the role of market forces in determining the viability of fracking. She argues for the importance of a domestic supply of gas for energy security and criticises the Government's policies regarding North sea oil and gas production. She questions the motives behind the desire for a full fracking ban, suggesting it is more about a hostile attitude towards UK oil and gas production rather than environmental concerns. She advocates for ending the ban on new licences, permitting Jackdaw and Rosebank, and ending the energy profits levy.

Asked the Minister to confirm whether Conservative MPs who are opposed to fracking are welcome in the Leader of the Opposition’s Conservative party, highlighting principled Conservative Back Benchers who rebelled against the Liz Truss Government to block plans for fracking.

Noted that companies have already invested more than £200 million in the potential for shale gas onshore, proving that they believe the reserves are considerable.

Asked whether delaying the transition to net zero would make energy more expensive for citizens, suggesting it is irresponsible to delay something that is needed and could cost more in the long term.

Questioned why successive Conservative Governments have massively constrained the amount of gas that can be stored in the country, despite the domestic production of gas being fantastic for the UK economy.

Thanked the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate for bringing the debate and emphasised the need for climate action following the hottest summer on record. Criticised the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness for denying climate science and called for clear Government commitment on fracking. Stated the Government's three-part position: banning fracking for shale gas, distinguishing between fracking and low-volume hydraulic fracturing, and prioritising clean energy. Reiterated the Government's commitment to ban fracking for shale gas and highlighted concerns about induced seismicity. Explained that low-volume hydraulic fracturing differs from shale gas fracking in terms of scale and purpose, and emphasised the robust regulatory regime in place. Rejected the argument that fracking would reduce energy costs and highlighted the benefits of reducing dependence on fossil fuels through clean energy. Concluded by reaffirming the Government's evidence-based policy position and commitment to maintaining the moratorium on fracking for shale gas.

Asked if the Minister agreed that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness exaggerated the amount of available gas and that nodding donkeys are not typically used for extracting gas, but rather a Christmas tree structure.

Asked the Minister if proppant squeeze is a loophole that the industry is using to circumvent the moratorium and therefore should be included in any ban.

Clarified his previous statement about nodding donkeys, specifically referring to oil wells.

Asked the Minister if producing our own oil and gas would give the Exchequer more money and whether the Government could use that money to reduce people's bills.

Discussed the use of proppant squeeze in fracking, highlighting its environmental impacts.

Argued for climate change concerns and the necessity of a green industrial revolution.

Contributed to the debate on environmental concerns and the need for a green industrial revolution.

Made arguments about climate change and environmental concerns.

Stressed the need for a green industrial revolution.