“(1) Section 4A of the Petroleum Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) at end insert (as closing words)—

‘(but see subsection (1ZA)).’

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

‘(1ZA) After 1 January 2024, the OGA must not issue a well consent for a well situated in the English onshore area that is required by an onshore licence for England or Wales unless the well consent imposes a condition which prohibits associated hydraulic fracturing from taking place in land.’”—(Dr Whitehead.)

This new clause would implement a sunset clause for issuing new fracking licences after 1st January 2024.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

New clause 58 is an attempt to get some clarity on the position relating to fracking, in the same way that we tried to get clarity about the position on onshore wind. As hon. Members will know—here I reprise my reference to the newspaper article that I inadvertently introduced in the previous debate; I thank the hon. Member for South Ribble for drawing my attention to that—we supposedly have a ban on fracking in the UK.

The article to which I referred was about the—[Laughter.]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Yes.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but as he is speaking he is brandishing a large picture of the Conservative party chairman, my right hon. Friend Greg Hands. It is quite distracting, so I wanted to draw his attention to it.

If I drew a moustache like mine on the right hon. Member in question, it would not look too bad. The reason why I have a big picture of the then Energy Minister in March 2022 is because, in response to an urgent question, he actually produced an answer that set out what he thought was the Government position on shale gas at that time. He said:

“We have always been clear that the development of shale gas in the UK must be safe and cause minimal disruption and damage to those living and working in nearby sites. This is not a new position. Shale gas and new approaches could be part of our future energy mix, but we need to be led by the science and have the support of local communities. That was in our general manifesto…The pause on fracking implemented in November 2019 on the basis of the difficulty in predicting and managing seismic activity caused by fracking remains in place, and we will continue to be led by the science in our approach.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 761.]

The important point to recognise is that the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham, referred to a “pause on fracking”. He indicated at that time, as did the Prime Minister, that it was a pause and not the end of fracking. The legislation on fracking goes back to one of hon. Members’ favourite Acts, the Infrastructure Act 2015, which set out a large number of conditions that have to be met in order for fracking to take place. After those conditions have been met, the legislation is clear that a hydraulic fracking consent may be issued, subject to any conditions that the Secretary of State thinks are appropriate. The door is still open for fracking to take place. Fracking is paused for further and better particulars to be received about seismicity and various other things, but in principle it has not been put out of contention.

With new Clause 58 we want to be clear that fracking has no place in our energy pantheon. To undertake to try to get hydrocarbons out of the soil requires extreme measures. We have to drill a well, blast the rocks to bits and then see what comes out. What comes out is a small amount of hydrocarbons that deplete rapidly, so then we have to blast a hole again, and do so repeatedly, until that source runs out. That seems to me like the stupidest way to extract gas from the ground, if one gives any mind to our low-carbon future.

There was an initial great wave of enthusiasm for fracking, but the plays that we have in the UK are unlike the Texas play, which I have seen. The play in Texas is a basin, and one has to be pretty dumb not to hit something when going down into it. The plays in the UK are very fractured, are particularly geographically located, have uncertain outputs and, contrary to what was hyped up at the time, would not produce a bonanza of gas.

Onshore fracking in the UK would create a very difficult environmental landscape. I have been to see the American shale activity in progress, and when coming into Austin airport I could see the devastation of the landscape from the fracking pads, the ponds and all the other things associated with it. It is clear how inappropriate it would be in a densely populated island such as the UK, with areas of northern Bowland clays in the north-west and Wealden clays in the south, to have that sort of activity concentrated on those areas and communities, with all the environmental consequences that would entail.

There is now a widespread consensus in this country that fracking is not for the UK, yet the Government do not put it out of contention. I accept that there has been a fairly long-lasting moratorium on the development of fracking, and the companies that were undertaking fracking have now effectively gone away, but I do not think they have given up the ghost on future fracking. They certainly will not for as long as the Government hold out the prospect that things could change for fracking in future.

Let us have a bit of courage in the Committee this afternoon, put fracking out of its misery—indeed, it would be a misery for a lot of us if it was not put out of its misery—and say that we do not want any fracking licences or well consents situated in the English onshore area. Let us just say no to fracking and put that on the face of the Bill. The Government would have another problem off their plate and would not have to think at great length about levels of seismicity and well capping and all the rest of it, because we would not have any fracking. That seems to me the best thing that could happen to the UK’s energy economy. It is simple, straightforward and means the end of fracking. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

New Clause 58 would impose conditions prohibiting hydraulic fracturing on onshore well consents in England after 1 January 2024. In October last year, the Government confirmed that they had adopted a presumption against issuing any further hydraulic fracturing consents. Therefore, further legislation is unnecessary as there is already an effective moratorium on fracking. This position will be maintained unless compelling new evidence is provided that addresses concerns about the prediction and management of induced seismicity. That is in line with commitments made in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which set out that we will not support fracking unless the evidence shows categorically that it can be done safely. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.

The Minister used the word “moratorium”, but moratorium does not mean ban. That is the simple difference between us. I hear what he said and accept that as far as he is concerned we are in a position where we are most unlikely to have fracking in future but, as I pointed out, that does not necessarily bind a future Government, whereas having something in legislation now would do so. On that basis, we will indicate our position by pressing the new Clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)

Adjourned till Thursday 29 June at half-past Eleven o’clock.