Politics

Fracking Week in Parliament: 16-20 January 2017

BigBen2

In this Fracking Week in Parliament:

  • Caroline Spelman on what the Church of England said about fracking
  • Claudia Beamish asks why a fracking ban is not in Scotland’s draft climate change bill

Thanks to TheyWorkForYou.com for the transcripts

UK PARLIAMENT

19 January 2017

Oral questions to the Church Commissioners on low carbon economy

kerry-mccarthyQuestion by Kerry McCarthy, Labour, Bristol East

How does commitment [by the Church of England] to a low-carbon future sit with reports today that the Church has given the go-ahead for fracking on Church land?

caroline-spelmanReply by Caroline Spelman, The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Conservative, Meriden

It is not a question of a Church of England go-ahead. This is part of Government policy. On Tuesday, the Church released an updated briefing paper on shale gas and fracking. It does not endorse or reject the outright prospect of fracking, but fracking is acceptable to the Church only if it turns on three points: the place of the shale gas in the low-carbon economy, the adequacy and robustness of regulation, and the robustness of local planning. Of course the Church sympathises with the concerns of individuals and communities that are directly affected by it.

Link to question

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

19 January 2017

Draft climate change plan

Claudia Beamish MSP - Labour - South of Scotland

Extract of statement by Claudia Beamish, Labour, South Scotland

The SNP’s failure to ban fracking—or even to mention fracking—in the plan is a major let-down. If the Government is serious about tackling climate change, it will back my bill to ban fracking.

Roseanna Cunningham - SNP - Perthshire South and Kinross-shire

Reply by Roseanna Cunningham, Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Scottish National Party, Perthshire Slouth and Kinross-shire

Fracking is not mentioned in the draft plan because we are not doing it. Factoring in something that we are not doing is not something that we considered being of much use. We are taking a cautious and evidence-led approach. I am conscious that the Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy is sitting next to me, and I know that he is about to launch a full public consultation on the issue. In fact, in our pre-statement chitchat, he asked me about issues in respect of that consultation. Once responses have been independently analysed, the full range of evidence will be considered and recommendations will be made.

In the timescales that the draft plan covers, we will not be doing fracking; it is not going to be factored in in the immediate future. If anything were to change, we would have to look again at the plan but, at the moment, there is no need to do that.

Link to debate

12 replies »

  1. How odd that the Church of England note on fracking would not receive headline billing on DrillorDrop but the note from 8 yr old Oliver would. Where did you say that your funding originates, Ruth?

    • I think the first Q&A (above) answers your point peeny. They’ve clearly been doing a bit more homework (thank God) … here come the caveats: “On Tuesday, the Church released an updated briefing paper on shale gas and fracking. It does not endorse or reject the outright prospect of fracking, but fracking is acceptable to the Church only if it turns on three points: the place of the shale gas in the low-carbon economy, the adequacy and robustness of regulation, and the robustness of local planning. Of course the Church sympathises with the concerns of individuals and communities that are directly affected by it.”

  2. Good links. Thanks peeny … anyone who reads them will see that they’re highly nuanced and full of caveats and concerns… not reflecting your gung-ho position at all.

    • Yup. But doing a great disservice to the frackers with manners like that (and such transparent and predictable hype)… good to have around for that reason alone.

  3. I wonder if the Archbishop was impressed to be used in Backing Fracking’s childish meme that caused such a furore Peeny?

    Nobody is arguing that the Church shouldn’t be allowed to have a nuanced view and to present it. That’s what debate is about.

    What really pollutes the debate is the deliberate misrepresentation of that view that we have seen here from you and elsewhere from Backing Fracking. I mean anyone who could suggest that that report could be read as ” Green light and all systems go! Gotta love it!” isn’t really trying to stay honest is he? What do you think Peeny?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s