Fracking Ban

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

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.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

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?

[Wera Hobhouse]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

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.

[Martin Wrigley]

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?

[Richard Tice]

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—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)]

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.

[Martin Wrigley]

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.

[Martin McCluskey]

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.

Energy

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

The biggest issue in my inbox is the cost of living and the cost of energy in particular. In the south-west, we are a net contributor to renewable energy, and we could do even more with tidal power investment. Yet our energy bills are higher than the national average. In my Newton Abbot constituency, we have higher fuel poverty than the average, and 23% of households in the district are in off-gas-grid areas.

Yet we face electricity bills based on the price of gas. That is because the electricity generation market is set up using so-called marginal cost pricing, which effectively increases the wholesale price of renewables to that of electricity generated by gas because gas power plants are flexible and used to top up the supply. Even though a significant and increasing proportion of the UK’s electricity is generated by sources with low marginal costs such as wind, solar and nuclear power, these generators also receive the higher marginal price set by gas.

Under the marginal pricing system, the UK’s electricity market price is set by gas 98% of the time—the highest rate across Europe and well above the EU average of just 40%. All that is under the Government-controlled system of contract to energy generators, to provide a level of certainty in the productivity and supply. But we have to break the tie with gas and marginal cost pricing.

The introduction of contracts for difference, used most significantly for offshore wind and introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) in the Energy Act 2013, is a good step but it still relies on setting a strike price for energy, which is heavily influenced by the price of gas at the time of the deal. In the 12 months to September 2025, renewables accounted for 42% of the UK’s total energy mix, while figures for the second quarter of 2025 indicate that renewables made up a record 54% of electricity generation.

The answer for cheaper bills, according to experts, is to intervene in the design of the market to stop the cost of gas plants from setting the price for the whole market, not to increase the reliance on fossil fuels that are choking the planet to death with carbon emissions.

Remote Coastal Communities

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Perran Moon]

I agree. That is why, on the back of this debate, I am calling on the Government to develop a specific remote coastal strategy.

First, there are the pressures of geographical remoteness itself. Physical isolation and sparse populations drive up the cost and complexity of delivering public services. In Cornwall, our landscape of small, scattered settlements and constrained transport links means that service provision is inherently far more expensive; those costs are not captured by labour and property indices alone.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

On transport links, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the final repair in phase 5 of the Dawlish rail resilience programme is vital to remote coastal communities in both Devon and Cornwall?

[Perran Moon]

I agree. The Dawlish line is very important in relation to Cornwall, and it needs to be a consideration for relevant Ministers.

Members may not realise that, sitting here, we are closer to Middlesbrough than to Camborne in my constituency, but remoteness is not just about distance; it is a barrier to access, opportunity and resilience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon]

I am just glad that we have a Labour Government who are taking the national health service far more seriously than the previous Government did.

My deepest concern is that deprivation is not adequately reflected in standardised measurements, particularly the indices of multiple deprivation, as the Government’s primary tool for assessing need. Research from Plymouth Marjon University due to be published on 26 September introduces the concept of “pretty poverty”—deprivation masked by Cornwall’s postcard beauty. The six key findings of the report show that the indices of multiple deprivation do not give enough weight to transport dependency, housing displacement, employment precarity, healthcare withdrawal, educational isolation and community resilience. Although the measurement has strengths, without reforming it we risk missing the deep structural issues facing remote coastal communities.

In June, as was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), the Government launched the fair funding review, acknowledging that outdated models have short-changed places like Cornwall. It includes a long overdue remoteness adjustment, previously dropped in 2018, and recognition of some of the costs associated with tourism. However, in Cornwall, the ending of the shared prosperity fund, which had been used to develop economic prosperity— announced on the same day that millions of pounds were made available for mayoral combined authorities in the north and midlands—was a bitter pill to swallow. The indices of multiple deprivation do not see the full picture, and when measurement fails, funding fails. I am pleased to see that a new iteration of the indices will be released later this year, and that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been brought into the process to consider rural affairs, but the specific needs of remote coastal communities must be considered as well.

Time and again, evidence shows that remote coastal communities are often conflated with rural areas, overlooked in key metrics and treated as peripheral. Decisions about these communities must be based on accurate, meaningful assessments of deprivation. I urge Ministers to commit themselves to reviewing the forthcoming research from Plymouth Marjon University, because although it focuses on Cornwall, the issues that it raises are likely to apply across most other remote coastal areas. I also ask this Minister to commit herself to a dedicated remote coastal strategy to deal with these issues holistically. Our remote coastal areas have so much economic potential, but up until now Government policy has seemed to favour investment in urban mayoral authority areas in London, Birmingham and Manchester.

[Martin Wrigley]

Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to go further, and appoint a Minister for coastal communities?

[Perran Moon]

I am not sure that such a Minister is what we need. What we need is absolute focus and a cross-departmental Government strategy for remote coastal areas. In these areas, we feel acutely the focus on urban areas and, in particular, mayoral combined authorities. Without sustained investment in remote coastal areas, in housing, transport, skills and economic development, our collective economic potential will remain untapped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Myer]

Governments of many colours have missed a trick by not investing and unlocking economic growth in our communities. We are not a problem, but we could be if not addressed.

[Martin Wrigley]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if coastal communities had just a fraction of the investment in public transport that is made in places such as London and other big metropolitan areas, they would flourish beyond belief?

[Luke Myer]

I do agree. That is part of the problem in our part of the world. By investing in infrastructure, whether that is public transport or grid connectivity for our manufacturers, the entire economy across the country can benefit. I have one village, Aysdalegate, which does not have a clean water supply; these are the basics of modern-day life.

My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth mentioned, towards the start of his speech, that the economic divides among our regions have led to a kind of fraying of the social fabric. There is a danger that we become more vulnerable to the anger, resentment and radicalisation that we often see in our politics. It is a mistake to assume that radicalisation can only happen to a very small number of people who are particularly vulnerable. It can happen to anyone when the economic conditions are ripe, particularly at a time when social media giants have built algorithms designed to keep us angry and afraid, and to make us think that our country has never been so bad.

It is important to remember that that is not real. When we visit our coastal communities, we see that England is alive and well. It is there in fishing villages, farmsteads, the stained glass of church windows, dry stone walls and rolling fields. It is there in marketplaces, allotments and so much else. We must not lose sight of that. That England is alive and kicking. That unpixellated England is waiting for us all to come home.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for securing this important debate for my first day in this job, and for his tireless advocacy on behalf of coastal communities. I completely agree: coastal communities are a vital part of our national identity, serving as postcards of national pride, and a reminder of our heritage and shared maritime history. But behind those postcards lies another story, as my hon. Friend has rightly alluded to, for the beauty of our coasts can mask the everyday reality of the people who live there all year round.

These communities face a unique set of circumstances. We know, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that coastal communities tend to have older populations and lower rates of employment, which often mean fewer opportunities for young people. We know that the Social Mobility Commission found that coastal communities have some of the least favourable conditions for childhood in the country; a disproportionately high number of children are eligible for free school meals and their parents have relatively low qualification levels. We know that these communities tend to suffer from a lack of connectivity—a point that hon. Members have made—geographically, economically and digitally, with worse 4G coverage and fewer business opportunities than in high-growth sectors.

Let me assure the House that this Government understand the challenges faced by coastal communities. The Government’s mission is to reverse inequalities and unlock the full potential of all our communities, including our coastal communities, to ensure that they play a vital role in our economy and our future.

[Martin Wrigley]

I appreciate the Minister listing the disadvantages that we have in our coastal communities, although she did not mention the fact that our health services are overwhelmed in the summer. The Dawlish minor injuries unit not being open due to lack of staffing, for example, does not help when numbers in our towns double in the few weeks of summer. It really is very disadvantageous for the local residents.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for making that important point about the pressures faced by our coastal communities, particularly at peak tourist points. It is important that we acknowledge that.

What we are trying to do as a Government, through long-overdue reforms to the local government finance system, is redirect around £2 billion of existing funding to the places and communities that need it the most, which will enable councils—including in our coastal areas—to deliver reliably for their residents. We also acknowledge and recognise that delivery costs vary across the country. Deprivation, remoteness, varying abilities to raise taxes locally and the impact of commuters and tourists, as the hon. Member pointed out, can all affect how hard it can be to deliver services in coastal communities. That is why we are committed to ensuring that those factors are accounted for in future funding allocations—an important move that will have an impact on our communities.