Infrastructure Bill — New Clause 9 — Moratorium on Onshore Unconventional Petroleum — Review Impacts of Exploitation — 26 Jan 2015 at 17:30
The majority of MPs voted not to ban the exploitation of unconventional petroleum (including "fracking") for at least 18 months and not to require a review of the impact of such exploitation on climate change, the environment, the economy, and health and safety be carried out and published.
MPs were considering the Infrastructure Bill
The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was:
- ‘(1) All use of land for development consisting of the exploitation of unconventional petroleum in Great Britain shall be discontinued during the relevant period.
- (2) The Secretary of State must ensure that an independent assessment is undertaken of the exploitation of unconventional petroleum in Great Britain including the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing.
- (3) The assessment must take account of the impacts of the exploitation of the unconventional petroleum on—
- (a) climate change;
- (b) the environment;
- (c) health and safety; and
- (d) the economy.
- (4) The Secretary of State must—
- (a) consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and
- (b) publish the assessment within the relevant period.
- (5) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (4)—
- “relevant period” means a period of not less than 18 months and not more than 30 months commencing on the date two months after Royal Assent;
- “unconventional petroleum” means petroleum which does not flow readily to the wellbore.
- (6) In section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998, at the end of subsection (4) add “and subsection (4A).
- “(4A) Nothing in this section permits the grant of a licence to search and bore for and get unconventional petroleum in Great Britain during the relevant period.
- (4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A) “relevant period” and “unconventional petroleum” have the meaning specified in section [Moratorium on onshore unconventional petroleum] of the Infrastructure Act 2015.”
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||272 (+1 tell)||6||0||92.1%|
|Lab||0||20 (+1 tell)||0||8.1%|
|LDem||33 (+1 tell)||14||0||85.7%|
|SNP||0||5 (+1 tell)||0||100.0%|
|Tracey Crouch||Chatham and Aylesford||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Zac Goldsmith||Richmond Park||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Jason McCartney||Colne Valley||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Mark Menzies||Fylde||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Eric Ollerenshaw||Lancaster and Fleetwood||Con||aye|
|Andrew Percy||Brigg and Goole||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Annette Brooke||Mid Dorset and North Poole||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Tim Farron||Westmorland and Lonsdale||LDem||aye|
|Duncan Hames||Chippenham||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Mark Hunter||Cheadle||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Julian Huppert||Cambridge||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|John Leech||Manchester, Withington||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Greg Mulholland||Leeds North West||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Tessa Munt||Wells||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Mike Thornton||Eastleigh||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Mark Williams||Ceredigion||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Roger Williams||Brecon and Radnorshire||LDem (front bench)||aye|