B971 - The Fracking Bill 2016 (Second Reading)

Watch
This discussion is closed.
toronto353
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
B971 - The Fracking Bill 2016 (Second Reading), TSR Green Party

Fracking Bill 2016, Second reading, TSR Green party


A BILL TO

Outlaw Fracking in the United Kingdom



BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

Definitions

1. 'Fracking' shall mean the drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside. Under this process water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well.
2. Fracking shall not be permitted in the United Kingdom, and any current fracking activity shall cease upon passage of the Bill. It shall be a criminal offence to permit, carry out, or allow on land the practice of fracking.

Offence of Carrying Out or Permitting Fracking

3. A person shall be individually or jointly liable of the offence of Carrying Out or Permitting Fracking, should they do one of the following:
(a) Grant Planning Permission for Fracking, or access to land used for Fracking.
(b) Be a Director or own more than 10% of the share capital of a Company, Partnership or other organisation which carries out Fracking.
(c) Operate any machinery associated with the Fracking process
4. The maximum penalty for any person carrying out or Permitting Fracking shall be five year's imprisonment, upon conviction. A company upon conviction can be fined a maximum of £5 million.

Extent and Commencement

5. This Bill will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom
6. This will take effect from the passage of the Bill.

Notes

Fracking sites have included drilling in countryside areas, and should it expand could include Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There are numerous dangers associated with fracking, including water contamination. By using fossil fuels instead of renewable energy sources, this will increase the impact of climate change
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Changes? Still a no if the purpose is the same, which I assume it is

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
GaelicBolshevik
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Aye - might as well.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Still a strong nay. I don't see the point of s3(b), given the company can be liable under s2 (which should be under the offences heading). Furthermore, you really need to clarify the mens rea. I would go for 'knowingly and willingly' or 'deliberately', but at the very least you need a sentence which says 'this shall be an offence of strict liability' if you don't want that to be required.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
What's changed?
0
Lime-man
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
It's a nay from me.

I'd support something that states that companies can't frack where nearby residents don't want them to, but an outright ban isn't really a smart idea.
0
BenC1997
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
Still a strong nay.
0
TitanCream
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
With section 3a,how can we be absolutely sure that someone is planning to do it? Someone can easily say no. There needs to be some sort of measure.
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
Aye

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
username1899909
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
changes ?
0
Retropattern
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
Aye
0
Gladiator12345
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
Aye from me
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Aph)
What's changed?
Formatting and the details of who can be held accountable for the offence of permitting or carrying out fracking.
0
username1450924
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
Nay
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
This is typical Green Party politics of banning things they do not like when there is little evidence to support the need to ban something.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
I'm sympathetic, but wouldn't vote for this.
0
toronto353
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#17
This is in cessation
0
toronto353
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#18
Division! Clear the Lobbies!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (677)
33.68%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (856)
42.59%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (386)
19.2%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (91)
4.53%

Watched Threads

View All