Small-scale Fracking Ban

Luke Charters Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of banning small-scale fracking operation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. It is also a pleasure to lead a debate on banning small-scale fracking—an issue that I have campaigned on since I was elected MP for Scarborough and Whitby. It has huge local, national and international significance.

The issue of small-scale fracking first came to my attention when Europa Oil & Gas applied to explore for gas at Burniston, just outside the picturesque North York Moors. The plans, published in full in March, include erecting a 38-metre-high drilling rig and proposals to carry out small-scale hydraulic fracturing, which Europa calls “proppant squeeze”. The planning application is due to be heard by North Yorkshire council’s strategic planning committee imminently, making this debate extremely timely.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Like her, I have fought against fracking for years, but Reform UK wants to drill into our beautiful countryside in York Outer, destroying towns and villages and allowing house prices to plummet in the process. They want to drill into and vandalise our beautiful York and North Yorkshire countryside. Does my hon. Friend agree that Reform poses a danger, that it would totally ruin York Outer and Scarborough and Whitby, and that it must be stopped?

[Alison Hume]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that Reform’s plans are a threat to our beautiful countryside, and our constituents do not want them.

Europa’s plans have been widely opposed by the local community. In response, campaigners launched a petition that has garnered more than 10,000 signatories calling for a Government ban on small-scale fracking. Fracking—short for “hydraulic fracturing”—is the process of injecting fluid at high pressure into an underground rock formation to release the gas or oil inside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Hume]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I appreciate your advice. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) for his intervention; he makes a good point that our English countryside, wherever it is, needs to be protected. The only way to do that is to ban all forms of fracking.

A 2020 summary of the findings of studies commissioned by what was then the Oil and Gas Authority into seismicity resulting from the operations at Preston New Road emphasised that

“it is not yet possible to accurately predict the seismic response to hydraulic fracturing, if any, in relation to variables such as site characteristics, fluid volume, rate or pressure. Where induced seismicity has occurred, mitigation measures have shown only limited success, and there can only be low confidence in their effectiveness currently.”

In other words, all forms of fracking carry significant risk in relation to seismicity, irrelevant of the volume of liquid proposed.

Other environmental concerns with fracking remain; they are exactly the same for proppant squeeze: potential groundwater contamination from methane migration or the chemicals in frack fluid, methane leaks, flaring and air pollution. Of course, as hon. Members have already drawn attention to, fracking at any volume also leads to more greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change. Clearly, the regulatory loopholes around fluid volume are arbitrary and unhelpful. Proppant squeeze carries the same intent and the same risks as higher-volume fracking. It is fracking in all but name.

It is the legal opinion of Estelle Dehon KC that the wording of the Petroleum Act 1998 should be changed to include proppant squeeze. She writes that the current definition has

“caused confusion and proved difficult to apply”,

and instead suggests adopting “a simple, broad definition”, which

“avoids imposing unscientific volume or rock-formation-based criteria, and thus captures both high and low volume hydraulic fracturing”.

Ms Dehon highlights that many jurisdictions have adopted a broad approach, particularly countries in Europe and Latin America, and multiple US states, where fracking and extractive industries are significant. In her view, and mine, that shows that such a definition is workable. Given the arguments presented today, could the Minister confirm that he will review the current definition of fracking to include those applications for lower volumes of fluid?

At the Labour party conference this year, I was thrilled to hear the Secretary of State confirm that he wanted to legislate at the earliest opportunity to ban fracking for shale gas permanently in England. I was glad to see on 26 November the Government bringing forward new measures in the North sea future plan to implement our manifesto commitments to manage existing oil and gas fields for their lifespans, and not to issue new licences to explore new fields. That is welcome news from a Labour Government committed to showing global climate leadership.

However, I would argue that the proposed ban on fracking is not permanent and does not go far enough. There remain a total of 66 oil and gas licences in England, many of them unused. Under current plans, oil and gas companies will continue to apply for planning permission where there are existing licences and, with the loophole in place enabling companies to propose fracking projects at smaller fluid volumes, they may be able to carry out the exact operations that the Government are attempting to outlaw.

As I have laid out today, if the Government want to ban fracking, they must be comprehensive and must amend the definition of fracking to include smaller-scale volumes of fracking. They must also deal with the issue of existing licences by introducing a ban on granting planning permission for fracking.

[Mr Charters]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On these planning applications, we must incorporate the fact that fracking leads to water scarcity—and our region has had a hosepipe ban that has only recently been lifted. Would my hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to these planning applications, we must understand the impacts on water scarcity?

[Alison Hume]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent intervention. Indeed, the hosepipe ban in Yorkshire has brought to everybody’s attention that our water is precious and must not be contaminated by any form of fracking.

There are various ways that the Government could amend legislation to prevent oil and gas companies from applying for new permission to frack. If I may, there are two main changes that I would like the Minister to consider. First, we could consider revoking the current provisions in the Petroleum Act 1998 and the Infrastructure Act 2015 and replacing them with a flat prohibition either on the grant of any licences permitting fracking or on any person carrying out fracking. Secondly, might he consider amending the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to include a general ban, ensuring that no application for planning permission that uses the technique of fracking may be granted by a local planning authority or by the Secretary of State?

More broadly, this Government are committed to restoring the UK’s position as a global leader when it comes to climate action; among various pledges, we have committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to achieving net zero by 2050. Banning all fracking operations to prevent damaging greenhouse gas emissions would ensure that this policy is in line with our climate commitments. Would the Minister consider introducing a comprehensive ban on fracking so that Government policy fully reflects those obligations?

When it comes to fracking, the case is clear: so-called small-scale fracking, or proppant squeeze, is no different in intent or risk than larger-scale operations; it can lead to earthquakes and environmental damage, and contributes to climate change. The loopholes that exist in current legislation are arbitrary, unscientific, and undermine both the Government’s moratorium and any future ban on fracking.

The moratorium signalled a fundamental change in the UK, shifting focus on to energy alternatives; a total ban will encourage investment in renewable energy, promote green jobs and reinforce public trust in the Government’s green growth mission. If this Government want our legislation to be clear and consistent, and want to safeguard the national environment, listen to the concerns in all our communities and meet our climate commitments, they must introduce a comprehensive ban on fracking based on intent and process, and which disregards fluid volumes.

Today, I urge the Minister to act to ban all fracking and I call on the Government to close the loopholes in the Petroleum Act 1998 by changing the definition of fracking to include small-scale fracking and to amend legislation to prevent new planning applications under existing licences. By introducing those changes, this Government can demonstrate deeds, not words on their commitment to a total ban on fracking, and we can ensure that policy is truly aligned to our climate obligations. I thank those hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for securing this debate, for her fantastic speech and for all her campaigning on this issue and many others since she was elected. She is a fantastic champion for her community. I also thank her for all the conversations we have had on this issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby noted the importance of this Government’s climate commitments. I think it is useful to restate those for context. In the face of a fractured consensus—pardon the pun—this Government are absolutely committed to tackling the climate emergency. That is why our clean power mission and everything we are doing in Government is about getting us off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. It also means managing the role that oil and gas plays in the country at the moment.

Just a fortnight ago we published our response to the consultation on the future of the North sea—our “North Sea Future Plan”—which includes not just the future actions in the North sea, but our approach to the onshore oil and gas sector. We have set an ambitious and pragmatic approach to cease new oil and gas licensing and explore new offshore and onshore fields while managing existing fields for their lifespan; I will come back to that point later. That is all about helping manage our transition from fossil fuels—what we have to do for climate change—but also how we invest in what comes next and the clean energy that will bring down people’s bills and deliver our energy security.

I have listened closely to the points made by my hon. Friend in today’s debate, and in the correspondence that I have had with her and our other meetings. My Department has also been aware of these concerns through correspondence from other Members in this place and the recent e-petition that was considered. I want to be clear on this Government’s position towards hydraulic fracturing—both high-volume hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and more conventional low-volume hydraulic fracturing.

Regarding high-volume fracturing for shale gas, the Government have committed to end fracking for good, as my hon. Friend noted. On 1 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced legislation that will be introduced soon to end new onshore oil and gas licensing in England, including new licences that could be used for high-volume hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, which is commonly understood as fracking.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made a powerful point about our opponents in this debate. The idea put forward by Reform that we should not only not continue with our moratorium, but embrace fracking as a form of energy and start doing it all across the country, goes into the bucket with so many of their policies that are backward, dangerous and ill-conceived. We will absolutely reject that approach and we will legislate to make sure that our commitment will stand in the statue books for the future.

There is already an effective moratorium on high-volume hydraulic fracturing for shale gas—fracking—in England, and that will continue to apply to all existing licences. That is in place because of concerns that were raised around the prediction and management of induced seismicity in that type of fracturing. There are similar restrictions in place in other parts of the UK; taken together, that existing moratorium for currently licensed fields and the end of licensing for new fields means that no fracking for shale gas takes place anywhere in the country, and no new licences will be granted that could be used for that in the future.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby is about low-volume hydraulic fracturing, which has been the focus of today’s debate. I want to be clear that this Government make policy based on evidence. Although I have listened very closely to her points today and in the past, 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.

A small number of those activities take place—including, for example, proppant squeezes at volumes lower than the thresholds for fracking generally, as currently defined in legislation. The small number of those activities are not currently in scope of the effective moratorium that is in place. She rightly asked whether I would consider a review of that definition; of course, I keep all these things under review, and I am very happy to continue to review new evidence as it comes forward, but any change has to be based on evidence. We have to see additional evidence to what we have reviewed on the definition, but that is not there at the moment.

Low-volume hydraulic fracturing activities under existing licences take place in the context of conventional oil and gas operations. They require a range of permissions and consents before they can be undertaken, which include planning permission from the relevant local authorities and the necessary permits and consents from the North Sea Transition Authority, the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. That system ensures that operations meet the safety and environmental standards and obligations set out in law, and activities will be approved only if each of those stages is positively completed.

My hon. Friend noted the point about existing licences, and I want to reiterate what our manifesto said. There were two parts to that commitment: we said that we would not issue new licences to explore new fields—we will legislate for that soon—but that we would not revoke existing licences. It is the Government’s position that existing licences are in place and we do not intend to rescind them.

This is clearly a complex issue. I understand, as my hon. Friend has raised today, that there are real concerns from communities about any of these kinds of projects. Although the evidence base is important for us to make decisions here, I do not discount for a second the concerns that communities have. I want to hear those concerns from across the country. I remain very open-minded, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to new evidence coming forward to look at this definition, but for obvious reasons, it is important that the Government make policy decisions based on evidence that can stand up to scrutiny if ever challenged in court. That evidence base is critical.

[Mr Charters]

In that evidence, will the Minister include water scarcity? In York and across the region, people have not been able to fill up a paddling pool, so why should water be used in low-volume fracking?

[Michael Shanks]

I appreciate that point; I am sorry for not mentioning it earlier, as my hon. Friend made it before. It is an important point, and we need to look at water scarcity right across the policy landscape. Demand for water is increasing in a number of areas—for example, I am looking at it in terms of data centres at the moment. The Government must look at the uses of water, as well as building new reservoirs to ensure we have water supply. That is an important point that will be taken into consideration by the Environment Agency and as part of the local planning process, but I will take it away and see whether there is anything more we can do on that.

The Department and I are keeping low-volume hydraulic fracturing under active review. We are open to receiving objective evidence, wherever that may come from; we will review that and look at whether definitions need to change and whether other legislation is required, but the position is as I have set out at the moment. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby again for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall, and other hon. Members who have participated. I appreciate the engagement on the issue, which I am confident that my hon. Friend will continue. I look forward to that.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025 Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025 Draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Luke Charters Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 General Committees

[Justin Madders]

I welcome the shadow Minister back after the summer recess. It is a little disturbing—discombobulating, possibly—to hear the Opposition arguing against legislation that they introduced when they were in government, although it is not the first time, I suppose. I think that there was cross-party agreement in the previous Parliament that it is important to clamp down on economic crime by ensuring the integrity of the Companies House register and that it is accurate and up to date.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I share my hon. Friend’s discombobulation. I had a career in countering financial crime before entering this place. Shell companies are rampant, and Companies House needs these powers. Ultimately, when it comes to fraudulent claims against the public purse, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and others across the public realm are all dependent on Companies House reform. Director identity verification is necessary and proportionate, and as my hon. Friend said, it is discombobulating that the Opposition oppose it.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I think that is now three references to “discombobulating”. That is quite a record for this early in September. Members have been pretty clear about the value of this legislation and the draft regulations that we are debating today, and it is disappointing that we have heard them wrapped up in an argument about red tape.

The Companies House data is currently valued by business users—the people who actually invest in business in this country—at between £1 billion and £3 billion a year. It is a hugely important tool for investors and other businesses to understand the business environment, so the reliability of that data is paramount. These reforms will ensure that people know who they are dealing with, that those people’s identities have been verified, and that we do not have the plethora of fake companies that have been set up on the register in recent years. We all know the consequences of that.

The shadow Minister mentioned enforcement, and made reference to the burdens on it. The Insolvency Service is generally responsible for any prosecutions under the legislation, but between September 2024 and August 2025, 99% of the entities that were required to record a PSC did so correctly at incorporation. It is quite often the case that those that have not responded are not doing so because the companies simply are not active any more and have been taken off the register.

Part of the new landscape is that the fees that are charged by the various bodies for registering are meant to be on a cost-recovery basis, and the number of fines issued and prosecutions pursued are part of that overall landscape. It is important that there is proportionate but effective enforcement. The shadow Minister asked what we will be doing in terms of outcomes. We will certainly expect Companies House to do regular reports on the numbers of companies that have incorporated, and where there are issues with people not providing IDV or details of the PSC. I have given some further information about progress to date, but when the full system goes live in November, I fully expect Companies House to provide regular updates to Members about progress on that. On that note, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT ECONOMIC CRIME AND CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT 2023 (CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) REGULATIONS 2025 

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025.—(Justin Madders.)

DRAFT REGISTER OF PEOPLE WITH SIGNIFICANT CONTROL (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2025 

Resolved, 

That the Committee has considered the draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025. —(Justin Madders.)

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

Luke Charters Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I welcome the question from my honourable namesake. I hope he is not still getting my emails; I get a few of his, and I try and help out where I can on those local issues. He is right: we have inherited a lot, and there is a devolved landscape to this as well. People often ask—we had a conversation in the Select Committee about this—why we do not bring them all into one organisation. It is important to understand that they play key different roles. I cannot remember what page of the industrial strategy it is on, but the different parts of the journey those different organisations represent are specifically addressed. They are there to do different things.

Of huge interest to me is the scale-up point—the serious business-to-consumer point. I think people recognise that there is a lot of capital in the world, but the question is whether it matches the risk profile and opportunities of businesses in the UK. We all recognise the tremendous innovation in this country, but do we always get the long-term benefits of that scale-up happening in the UK rather than going abroad? We do not, and that is what we are seeking to fix. That is the fundamental mission that we are all united behind.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) and I have published a report highlighting the persistent scale-up gap for defence SMEs. I welcome the increase in funds for nationally significant infrastructure projects, but red tape is holding back investment in British single-use military technology, so will my right hon. Friend look at clearing up some of that red tape in order to supercharge investment in British defence SMEs?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I very much welcome the question and the work that my hon. Friend has done. He has been an ally in ensuring that there are no problems around the defence sector being seen as a legitimate source of business investment and economic activity. We recognise why we need that in the national interest, but we should not in any way be squeamish about the contribution that defence makes because the deterrence value is a fundamental contribution to peace, as well as to economic security.

I can tell my hon. Friend that the strategy commits us to double the amount of the defence budget that goes specifically to SMEs, rising to £2.5 billion a year. SMEs, in diversifying the defence supply chain and creating those opportunities, are absolutely a part of this strategy, and if he has any red tape to show me that we need to get rid of, let’s work together to get rid of it.

Competition and Markets Authority Chairman

Luke Charters Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I would not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation at all, and I am sure that Conservative Members would not, either. We announced only this morning that we will take action against Amazon on knife sales, so I do not think the characterisation that we are in the pocket of big tech is at all accurate.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

The CMA took far too long to reach a decision on the Vodafone and Three merger. This slowed down the roll-out of 5G across all our constituencies and was a drag on growth. How can regulators be pushed to ensure that their decisions lead to growth?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is right that we need to give the business community confidence that decisions will be made quickly to provide certainty, so that it can move forward with investments for the benefit of the whole economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Charters Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to support the delivery of the funding plans outlined in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Mansion House speech.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

18. What steps his Department is taking to support the delivery of the funding plans outlined in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Mansion House speech.

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

Growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission and, in her Mansion House speech, the Chancellor announced a package of reforms to drive growth and investment across the UK. I have lost count of the number of times I have had conversations with businesses where they talked about how our appetite for risk is not in the right place, and we are looking to reform that. Here in DBT, we are driving change through our new industrial strategy working across Departments, which we will publish in the spring.

[Sarah Jones]

We have an expanded Office for Investment, which brings together the Department for Business and Trade, No. 10 and the Treasury. Our Investment Minister is working at pace travelling around the world to bring in investment. I met her and the Office for Investment this week, and we are in constant dialogue about how we can bring more foreign direct investment into the country, building on the £63 billion announced at the investment summit, and how we can kick-start the economy after 14 years of failure.

[Mr Charters]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned growth over 40 times in her superb Mansion House speech. York, Leeds and beyond will benefit from that. How will my hon. Friend ensure that the industrial strategy delivers for financial services so that we can achieve the growth this country desperately needs?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the UK’s world-leading financial services sector. Through the Treasury, we are developing a 10-year financial services strategy and, of course, financial services is one of the pillars of our industry strategy, which we will publish in the spring. We cannot take the UK’s status as a global financial centre for granted. In a highly competitive world, we need to earn that status and work to keep it, and that is what we intend to do.

Future of the Post Office

Luke Charters Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I can be absolutely clear with the hon. Gentleman: I said no decision had been made on any individual directly managed branch, and that is absolutely true. We are also clear that sub-postmasters, trade unions and communities will have to be consulted about the future of directly managed branches. We want an improvement in the services that post offices can provide; that is one of the reasons for our work on banking services with the Post Office going forward.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I recently met two constituents who are yet to receive compensation as former sub-postmasters. I felt their pain, and I felt that their pain was being compounded by the long-drawn-out process, driving mental anguish for them on a daily basis. Can my hon. Friend update the House on when the appeal system for the Horizon shortfall scheme will be up and running?

[Gareth Thomas]

We expect the appeals process that we announced for the Horizon shortfall scheme to be up and running soon—realistically, probably early in the new year. I say gently to my hon. Friend that I share his deep concern that there are so many sub-postmasters who are victims of the Horizon scandal, and who are still to receive their compensation and full and fair redress. We have seen an increase in the numbers getting redress, but there is more work to do; it is a challenge that we are very much focused on as a Government.