Fracking Ban

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

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

[Phil Brickell]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

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

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

[Phil Brickell]

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

[Harriet Cross]

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

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

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

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

Energy Security

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

My hon. Friend puts it better than I ever could. She is absolutely right; it is completely nonsensical.

In Aberdeen there will be a referendum on this Government’s approach to the North sea in just a few short weeks. On 18 June, the people of what was until recently the oil capital of Europe will have their say on how they feel this Government have treated them and the industry of which they are so proud.

It is not just the production of oil and gas that is being driven to extinction by this Government’s policies. Nor is it just Aberdeen that is being affected by the Government’s anti-growth, anti-business policies: Lindsey, Mossmorran, Grangemouth, Denby, Pembrokeshire, glassworks and metalworks, potteries, refineries and chemical plants—heavy industry is being crushed by the cost of energy. Yet rather than trying to prevent that, this Labour Government are interested only in accelerating the industry’s decline.

The Government’s headlong rush to renewables may be well intentioned, but it is utterly bereft of common sense. This Labour Government are rushing towards a power system that depends on the weather rather than firm, reliable baseloads, exposing us to blackouts, just like the one we saw on the Iberian peninsula last year. Avoiding such blackouts and providing that energy baseload is exactly why the roll-out of new nuclear is an absolute priority. I am pleased that there is consensus on this and that the Government recognise the important role of nuclear in our future energy mix. That said, and as I have said before in this House, sadly this Government’s ambition for nuclear pales in comparison to that of ours when we were in government.

This Government’s failure to commit to a third gigawatt-scale reactor in Ynys Môn is a huge disappointment, not just for us on the Conservative Benches but for industry and the people in Ynys Môn too. The roll-out of small modular reactors is good, yes, but it curtails the possibility of gigawatt-scale power at Ynys Môn. A cynic might suggest that the decision was made to rush out the announcement in some desperate and hasty attempt to salvage the Welsh Labour party. Well, it is safe to say that that failed.

Back to ambition, the decommissioning of the UK’s stockpile of petroleum, the selection of only one small modular technology, and the refusal to follow our ambition of 24 GW of new nuclear is just not good enough.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister talked about his party’s ambition for new nuclear in this country, but can he remind the House how many new nuclear plants his party opened during their tenure in charge?

[Andrew Bowie]

I could run through the list of what we achieved in office on nuclear, as the Minister has heard me do many times, but let me remind the hon. Member that the Labour party has never opened one nuclear power plant in all the years it has been in office —a record that will probably continue over the next three years.

This act of national self-harm has to come to an end. There is only one party that has a plan to cut bills, support industry, protect jobs, and make Britain energy secure. Energy costs are stalling growth, deindustrialising the country and weighing down on families and businesses.

ECO4 and Insulation Schemes

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for all the work he has done on spray foam insulation and the campaigning he has done for his constituents. I fondly remember that Adjournment debate with just the two of us, and I vividly remember the stories he told of Tom and Norma. I reiterate the commitment to work together to try to resolve this.

The difference between spray foam insulation and work done under the ECO and GBIS schemes is that, because those are Government-backed schemes, we have the data. Large numbers of people have had spray foam installed, and some but not all of that work was done through the green homes grant.

We recognise that there is a problem with the system of quality assurance and regulation across the piece—we have acknowledged that very clearly in the House. We will continue to work with MHCLG and other colleagues to think about what we can do on spray foam. The priority, as the hon. Member will understand, is households who have had work done under ECO and GBIS that, if we do not fix it quickly, could result in damp and mould. We must act quickly on that. However, I acknowledge that there is an issue with households that had spray foam insulation done under the old system. As I said when we had the debate, we will continue work to think about ways in which we can resolve that for those households.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and, in particular, her remarks on consumer protection. Following on from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), a constituent recently told me at my surgery about work carried out on their home under the last Government’s green homes grant. Following spray foam insulation being put into their loft, they have a leaking roof that cannot be accessed, as well as damp that was not there previously. Those issues have had a huge detrimental impact on their lives. They find themselves unable to afford remedial works amounting to thousands of pounds. What message can the Minister share with my constituents? Will she meet me to discuss spray foam insulation installed under the green homes grant scheme?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will absolutely meet my hon. Friend to discuss spray foam insulation. Given the correspondence and parliamentary questions I have received on this issue, I offer to meet with hon. Members more broadly, because we need to ensure that we are listening to constituents. If the work was done under the green homes grant, we need to think about how we can get the system to respond as it should. I give that commitment to him and other hon. Members across the House who have cases in their constituencies and are worried about this.