WE have always said that proper evidence and proper regulation are vital when it comes to fracking.

The problem is the evidence for and against is so contradictory. It is impossible for even the informed layman to penetrate through the layers of jargon put forward by those on both sides of the argument to arrive at anything like the truth.

Likewise, we have always been sceptical about whether the regulations and protections that would be needed would be robust enough.

Our default position is that if the evidence over the safety of fracking isn’t clear, and if we’re not absolutely satisfied with the regulatory programmes proposed, then we should steer away from fracking until we are sure it is safe. Since a visit to the US in 2015, Malton and Thirsk MP Kevin Hollinrake has cautiously advocated allowing fracking to go ahead.

He has always made clear, however, that his support depends on proper regulation and supervision.

The MP now says that he has concerns because of proposals in the Conservatives’ General Election manifesto to change the planning statues and environmental oversight of fracking.

These would designate non-fracking drilling as ‘permitted development’, and would also move decision-making from local authorities to the National Planning Regime. Mr Hollinrake also has concerns about a proposed new fracking regulator.

Following a meeting with energy secretary Greg Clark, the MP has now said he will call for a moratorium on fracking if protections are weakened.

Planning permission has already been granted for fracking at Kirby Misperton.

Even at this late stage, however, Mr Hollinrake is absolutely right to call for a halt to fracking if there are any concerns either about its effect on local communities and landscapes, or about the quality of monitoring and regulation that will be in place.