Politics

MP to call for fracking ban in Rother Valley

Alexander Stafford, MP for Rother Valley, 21 January 2020. Photo: Still from Parliament TV

The MP for an area with two potential shale gas sites is expected to call in parliament for a permanent ban on fracking in his constituency.

Alexander Stafford, who represents Rother Valley in south Yorkshire, has secured an adjournment debate on Monday 28 September 2020.

The constituency has a site near the village of Harthill, where Ineos has planning permission to drill and test for shale gas.

A decision is awaited from the local government secretary on a similar application by the same company in the nearby village of Woodsetts.

Neither site has permission for fracking, which is currently the subject of a moratorium in England.

Access track to proposed Ineos shale gas site at Woodsetts. Photo: Woodsetts Against Fracking

Mr Stafford said:

“I am incredibly pleased to have secured this important parliamentary debate and deliver on my election pledge to do so.

“On Monday 28th I hope to put forward our case that fracking should not be taking place in our beautiful Rother Valley community, and that we must protect the ancient villages of Woodsetts and Harthill.”  

Ineos shale gas site at Common Road, Harthill, 2 May 2019. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Mr Stafford, first elected in Deember 2019, said he would be working before the debate with local campaign organisations, Harthill Against Fracking and Woodsetts Against Fracking . He also welcomed contributions from all constituents.

Adjournment debates last half an hour at the end of each day’s sitting. They are an opportunity for a backbench MP to raise an issue and get a response from a minister.

In his first public comment in the House of Commons in January 2020, Mr Stafford urged the government to make the moratorium permanent. Also that month, he asked nine parliamentary questions on fracking.

18 replies »

  1. Oh dear KatT!

    You can quote ancient history and amend the reality, but you are simply WRONG.

    Sir Jim sought to delay a tax bill, not avoid it. There is a difference-and it was not for billions! If you have examined the matter in detail, why so many errors of FACT?

    In respect of his Monaco “move”-that was not, because he didn’t! The Guardian might want to confuse the issue, and with yourself they have succeeded ,but they know perfectly well MANY wealthy individuals made plans at that time to keep their money and business out of JCs clutches, if the election allowed. I suspect you know it too. Of course the Guardian can not admit that getting hold of others business and money is not that easy these days, because then the Robin Hood fantasy disappears and the gullible public realize it is THEIR money that will be robbed and those who are not dumb have made arrangements to protect what they have built.

    So you have avoided the use of the sanitizers Sir Jim has been supplying into the UK, and elsewhere, FOC? Must have been FOC so he did not pay tax!!

Add a comment

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.