Claire Young MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Saudi East-West Oil Pipeline · Hansard source

  More

  Given the ongoing risk to our energy security illustrated by this latest incident, should the Government prioritise EN-6 sites, such as Oldbury in my constituency, supplying the grid, rather than private wire arrangements that do not support local industry?

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a full ban on fracking. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this debate and giving me the opportunity to lead it. In December 2025, the Minister for Energy told this House that: “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.” —[ Official Report , Westminster Hall, 10 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 151WH.] I am leading this debate because I want to challenge that statement and bring the Government’s attention to why I and many others believe that the understanding of fracking that the Minister referred to is not suited for purpose. I want this House to consider the evidence for that argument. Let me begin with the point that matters most: we do not have a ban on fracking in this country; we have a moratorium, and the two are not the same. A moratorium is a pause, and a pause can be lifted. The previous Energy Secretary told the Labour party conference last autumn that this Government would legislate to ban fracking for good. This Government have been in power for two years, yet I see no indication that a full ban is due. Maybe the Minister will care to correct me, but it seems that this Government are not taking decisive action to stop all fracking activity. The reason this activity continues is because of a legal loophole, and it is worth being precise about it. The Petroleum Act 1998 defines fracking by the volume of fluid injected: more than 1,000 cubic metres at any single stage, or more than 10,000 cubic metres in total. Stay below those figures and the moratorium simply does not apply. The intent is identical to fracking, and the technique is identical—a company injects fluid at high pressure to fracture rock and release the gas inside—but because the volume is lower, the law treats it as something else entirely and waves it through. At Burniston, on the edge of the North York moors, Europa Oil & Gas has proposed exactly that—a so-called proppant squeeze—at volumes designed to sit just under the threshold. In correspondence obtained under freedom of information, the company itself referred to the operation as fracking, yet in its planning material it insists that it is not. The label changes, but the drilling rig does not. The Reform Mayor of Scarborough said, “frack ahead”, although the local council voted unanimously against the plans, and the Secretary of State did not choose to overrule that. However, I am concerned about the direction that this is taking. Before I move on, I want to insert a small caveat: I am supportive of the geothermal sector. Geothermal is a genuinely renewable source of energy. A small number of geothermal cases employ low-volume hydraulic simulation. My case for a permanent ban asks for fracking to be classified by intent, and would therefore ensure that geothermal was not under threat. This is important because the geothermal industry has great potential in this country that has yet to be realised, despite being extensively used in other European countries. I want to be clear that low-volume fracking—as a form of fracking—is something entirely different.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to thank all the Back Benchers who have spoken in this debate. When the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) talked about how proppant squeeze is being used for fracking, I was minded to say “a rose by any other name”, but fracking is certainly not sweet. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and the hon. Members for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) all made good arguments about climate change and other environmental concerns, and the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) set out the need for a green industrial revolution. I do not have time to dissect in detail the speech made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). I am concerned that he may be suffering from amnesia. He seems to think that the recognition of the need for climate action is new, when it was in fact recognised back in the 1980s, including by such left-wing icons as Margaret Thatcher. He seems to have forgotten about the decades of testing on fracking that have already taken place. He either refuses to admit or does not realise that the geological situation in America is vastly different as well. Shale gas in the UK is deeper, is faulted and is contained in much more complex geological settings. Fracking will never shift a price set on global markets and it will never be worth the earthquakes, the polluted water and the broken trust it leaves behind. This country was promised an end to fracking—it is time to deliver it. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of a full ban on fracking.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, and I was just about to come to that point. In many cases, the very same people who would argue for fracking would argue for fewer wind farms, solar farms and other renewable energy sources due to their blighting of the countryside. I ask those voices, how is fracking supporting the upkeep of our countryside? How is it better than those other uses of countryside, which would produce clean energy, and how is contaminating our water supply helping anyone? The honest route to lower bills and real energy security is the one that this country is already capable of taking: cheap, clean, home-grown power. By that I mean renewables, but also low-carbon generation; the prospect of new nuclear at Oldbury in my own constituency shows the part that low-carbon generation can play alongside renewables in a secure system. That is where the jobs are, and that is where the investment should be flowing. That is the future. My ask of the Minister is a single, clear one. I feel as if this Government may need some clarity. I ask the Minister to commit today to defining fracking by its purpose and effect, not by an arbitrary measure of fluid used, so that every form of hydraulic fracturing is captured, the loophole is closed and the permanent ban that this Government have promised is written into law rather than left in a conference speech and forgotten. Our countryside, our water and our climate deserve nothing less.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I quite agree. The hon. Gentleman better explains the point that I was trying to make, which is that other issues, such as the potential for groundwater contamination, are different in the situation of fracking for fossil fuels. Ministers tell us that the evidence base is not there to show that lower-volume fracking carries the same risk as fracking for shale gas, but I say gently to the Government that the evidence is there, and it is sitting in their own records. The earthquake at Preston New Road that triggered the 2019 moratorium did not follow some enormous injection, but a series of lower-volume stages, every one of which was below the legal threshold. The tremor that shook Lancashire, felt across the area at a magnitude of 2.9, came in the days after a stage that used just 142 cubic metres of fluid. The then Oil and Gas Authority concluded that it was not possible to predict the timing or size of these events. The volumes proposed at Burniston were higher than the volume that caused that earthquake. This matters well beyond seismicity. It matters for our countryside and for the rural communities and protected landscapes that would host this drilling and gain almost nothing in return. It matters for our waters, as has already been mentioned; parts of Yorkshire were under a hosepipe ban in 2025, yet we are asked to pump scarce water deep underground and accept the risk of contaminating the aquifers that families and farms depend on. It matters for the climate, too. Every new source of onshore gas means more methane, more emissions and a direct collision with the carbon budgets that this House has voted for—not to mention our net zero ambitions. There are voices—Reform Members among them—who say that the answer to high bills is to return to fossil fuels and to frack our way out of trouble. I understand the appeal of a simple answer, but it is the wrong one. Gas is priced on an international market. Drilling a handful of wells in the English countryside would not move that price, and the companies doing the drilling would sell at whatever the market pays. Fracking would not take a single pound off a family’s bill. What it would do is divide communities, tie up local councils in years of planning battles and lock us into the very fuel whose price swings caused the crisis in the first place. We would be more exposed, so I question their intentions.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I was trying to say that mutual ownership would allow legally binding priorities to be set so that companies would have to protect the environment, provide clean water and provide standards that we do not have at the moment. I want to say one other thing: it is not just the default local water company that deals with waste water. On many modern estates, private companies that are separate to the default water company for the area are taking the waste, and there are no guarantees. If they fail, the responsibility for that waste reverts to Wessex Water in our case, and it may end up taking on even more inadequate infrastructure than it already has. That is something else to consider when we are discussing this issue.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  I will—thank you.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the many constituents who signed this petition. We have heard a range of views from across the Chamber on the best ownership model, but we can surely agree that the current model is untenable, is unsustainable and lacks democratic involvement. No one wants it except the water bosses themselves. My constituents continue to write to me to express their dissatisfaction with the system. Our local waste water company is Wessex Water. The former chief executive, Colin Skellett, received an £170,000 bonus from parent company YTL Utilities in 2024, despite a Government ban on performance-related payments following criminal pollution convictions. Accounts covering the period to June 2025 show that the Malaysian-owned parent company paid Mr Skellett remuneration of £693,000 in total. Wessex Water was subject to a bonus ban after being criminally convicted in November 2024 over a sewage pumping station failure. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) condemned this passionately, but I am sorry to say that since then things have not got any better. Our rivers are not cleaner, our infrastructure has not seen significant upgrades and our water bills have not gone down. However, Ruth Jefferson, the current chief executive of Wessex Water, has received a 14% pay increase, from £590,000 to £671,000—well above inflation. Environment Agency data shows that last year the company released 190,666 hours of raw sewage into the waterways—equivalent to about 21 years of continuous spillage. How many of our constituents got a 14% pay rise for failing to do their job so spectacularly? People recognise it for what it is. Mutual ownership by customers would put an end to this mockery. It would allow profits to be reinvested in infrastructure rather than being paid to shareholders. It would allow legally binding priorities to be set— [ Interruption. ]

• 16 Jul 2026 · National Planning Policy Framework · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this debate. My constituency is large and rural, containing the towns of Thornbury, Yate and Chipping Sodbury, as well as numerous villages and hamlets, and stretches from the internationally designated Severn estuary all the way to the Cotswold escarpment. A large part of the countryside that surrounds those communities is designated green belt, with all the protections that that used to bring, but now that protection is under threat. Before I go further, I will provide some context. Under the current administration, South Gloucestershire council recognises the need for new housing and has developed a plan to deliver its housing need, which recently went through its examination in public. More than that, the council recognises the importance of homes for social rent and has been punching above its weight in their provision. With around 0.6% of the population of England outside London, it delivered 1.6% of total new social rent completions last year. However, there is an implicit deal with local people in that local plan, which delivers homes while protecting the remaining countryside from speculative development. The Government’s grey belt policy fundamentally threatens that. Green belt land will now be parcelled up into cells for assessment, and it will be difficult to show an individual cell’s contribution. The changes to the framework around the grey belt essentially make purposes C and E void, and particularly C, which protects countryside from encroachment. The danger is that pockets of land will be considered in isolation and be judged only to contribute to purpose C. Indeed, the 2022 West of England combined authority report, in the local plan evidence, showed that the primary reason for just about all the land in the local green belt is purpose C. However, the cumulative impact of developing those pockets of land would degrade the green belt as a whole. Some of our green belt is very narrow, and it will only become more so if this is allowed to happen. Our towns and villages will slowly be swallowed up by Bristol, and the distinctiveness of our communities will be lost. My constituents do not want that, and I suspect that the good people of Bristol do not want it either, although some hon. Members may think otherwise. The Government rightly want to speed up housing delivery, but indiscriminate housing built by big developers with no regard for the environment or the people living nearby is not the answer. Ironically, far from increasing the speed of housing delivery, as the Government claim it will, in my area the grey belt changes the level of risk, creating more delays by distracting planning officers from the planned sites and from the Government’s new town proposal. Time will be wasted arguing with speculative developers about what constitutes grey belt, when it could be spent delivering local housing need through the local plan. I urge the Minister to listen to hon. Members across the Chamber, who are rightly raising concerns, and to advise the new Cabinet and the incoming Prime Minister that rural voices must be heard, and the NPPF revisited.

• 13 Jul 2026 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  Some schools in my constituency were forced to close during the recent red alert heatwave, causing disruption and loss of learning, so could the Minister explain what discussions she has had with the Department for Education about preparing our schools for more frequent and more extreme weather events, and about improving outdoor learning spaces, as advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), to ensure that the citizens of the future feel more connected to nature?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Draft Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The Liberal Democrats support the justification for the Rolls-Royce small modular reactor, or RR SMR, and the development of SMRs in general. We recognise their potential to strengthen energy security and reduce reliance on imported gas when they can provide a safe and cost-effective contribution to a decarbonised electricity system. We believe that the best way to cut bills is to invest in home grown clean power, creating well paid jobs across the UK, improving energy security and supporting economic growth. The development of the RR SMR will help towards that goal. We support this statutory instrument and remain clear that the Government should prioritise accelerating renewable generation, electricity storage and emerging nuclear technologies such as small modular reactors, enabling a fleet approach, rather than deepening the UK’s reliance on large-scale, expensive and slow-to-deliver one-off nuclear projects.