What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
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?
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.
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—
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 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—
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.
Absolutely, I will cite the sources. Look at everybody’s energy bills: they are going up and up, and—
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—
I will carry on, because I am in full flow.
I give way to the hon. Lady.
I was just coming on to that. The British Geological Survey has, for example, made clear estimates that there are vast sums.
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.
I am delighted to give way to the hon. Lady.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Seriously?
Nonsense!
Will the hon. Lady give way?
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.
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.
I speak as the chair of the new justice unions all-party parliamentary group, which hears from six trade unions representing workers across prisons, probation, policing and the courts. Our first action last week was to write to the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary to highlight a joint statement by six justice trade unions calling for a royal commission. Workers on the frontline see that the current piecemeal approach of narrow, stand-alone reviews can at best only tackle individual symptoms, while the disease and its causes remain untreated. Surely the Minister agrees that end-to-end reform is now essential, and that a royal commission is key to enabling this.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I first raised the case of my constituent Sarah Rees in January. A year after retiring, Sarah had not received her civil service pension, and it took my raising it in the Chamber to get any sort of action. Sarah’s husband is now in the same situation and has had to endure Capita’s delays and incompetence. Since first asking for his quote in January, he has chased it 20 times and still not had it. I am asking for three things. First can the Minister give us further details on the long-term strategy being developed to bring the contract in house? I welcome that move, but we need more detail. Secondly, on behalf of my constituents, I seek assurance on exactly how the UK Government intend to hold Capita to account, as we know that it is not hitting even basic benchmarks. Finally, will the Minister fully consider calls for compensation to reflect the financial cost of these failings for people and their families, many of whom have been without income for nearly a year or more?
Diolch, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. Rural communities in Wales are being hit hard at the pumps. While the average price of unleaded petrol across Wales is just over 162p per litre, the very cheapest in Caerfyrddin is 165.9p—166p per litre—with most forecourts charging more. Rural households do not have a choice but to drive, yet they are paying a premium simply because of where they live. The Government must surely step up and support those communities. Will the Minister extend the rural fuel duty relief scheme to Wales to support households in rural areas?
Liberal Democrats have long championed our high streets, tourism and hospitality sectors. While we strongly support devolving economic powers, businesses are already struggling under mounting costs, a VAT rate higher than that of our international peers and the Government’s national insurance contributions hike. Without support, an overnight levy risks looking less like genuine devolution and more like another short-term tax grab. If Ministers hand local mayors and foundation strategic authorities the power to introduce levies, they must bring forward vital sector relief—an emergency 5p VAT cut, relief from NICs and so forth—and must not reduce local government funding as a result. Can the Minister confirm when this House will see full details of the levy? Specifically, will Ministers implement a cap and sector support to protect local tourism and hospitality?
The surge in so-called nightlife videos, in which women are covertly filmed on a night out, is despicable. The videos are shared online and are accompanied by vile and misogynistic abuse, which drives engagement and generates profit for the creators. The Government have committed themselves to making misogyny an aggravated offence, but will the Minister go further and commit herself to making misogyny a hate crime?
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?
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.
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.
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?
Fracked gas?
Will the hon. Gentleman give way again just once more?
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?
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.
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?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing the debate. Like everyone here, I have constituents who, after years of dedicated public service in our armed forces, prisons and vital public services, are now struggling to make ends meet because of failures by Capita. I raised those issues back in April, when the then Minister made a statement on this matter, but sadly it is now like a conveyor belt: just as we get one case resolved, another one appears from a constituent who cannot access the pension they have worked for and earned. The most important point I want to make today is that behind every delayed pension is a person whose life has been put on hold. One of my constituents is grieving the loss of her husband, who passed away in July. As if that were not already enough, she cannot access his civil service pension. She spoke with Capita last week and was told that her case was “progressing”—exactly the same update as she had a month earlier. I attended Cabinet Office questions last week, at which the Minister outlined the Government’s insourcing plans and the penalties that Capita is experiencing, but I want her to address two questions today. First, what are the timescales for insourcing? “Plans” do not help our constituents right now. Secondly, what criteria are being applied in relation to penalties for Capita? Constituents need answers and reassurance.
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the English whisky geographical indication definition of single malt.
I declare an interest as chair of the Scotch whisky all-party parliamentary group, and I also hold a Chartered Institute of Brewers and Distillers general certificate in distilling. On Friday evening at 5 pm, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced that it had approved the English Whisky Guild’s application for English whisky to receive geographical indication status, despite objections from the Scotch, Welsh and Irish whisky associations. Let me be clear that my objection is not to English whisky obtaining geographical indication status. English whisky has a long and legitimate history in its own right. My concern is specifically about the definition of English single malt whisky that DEFRA has now approved. Under that definition, English single malt whisky requires only distillation at a single distillery, rather than for all the stages of production to take place at a single site. The term “single malt whisky” carries a long-established reputation and meaning for consumers. It risks disadvantaging Scotch producers, who have invested heavily to comply with the traditional single-site production model, including distilleries in my own constituency such as Kingsbarns, Eden Mill, Daftmill and Lindores. Scotch whisky is one of the UK’s most important export industries, supporting jobs, investment, tourism and economic growth across rural communities. Weakening an internationally recognised definition risks damaging consumer confidence and diluting brand value at a time when the Scotch whisky industry is not in the rude health that the Government mistakenly think it is. The new definition could also be misleading for consumers who reasonably understand a single malt whisky to be a product produced entirely at one distillery. I ask the Minister: why was this announcement made after the House had risen on a Friday evening, and why does the appeal period finish before the House returns from recess? I ask the Minister also to explain why a decision that undermines the integrity of the single malt definition—a decision that creates an uneven playing field across the UK and risks disadvantaging distilleries that have invested to uphold long-standing industry standards—was approved. Why did the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury tell the House in March last year that DEFRA would not be watering down the definition of single malt whisky? Because I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that is exactly what the Government are doing now. Will the Minister also set out what discussions he has had with the Scotland and Wales Offices and what assessment has been made of the implications of this decision for the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and how those implications were considered?
A few weeks ago, I visited Margaret Green Animal Rescue in Wareham, where I was told that the rescue takes in animals when pet owners are prosecuted for animal welfare offences, but that those animals cannot be rehomed during the delay before prosecution. We should be dealing with the court backlog for many reasons, but for the sake of animal welfare, will the Minister look at how we can ensure those animals are rehomed and not delayed in these facilities?