THERE is a right to peaceful protest which is a proud part of our political inheritance, and it is a liberty that, as a politician, I believe it is my duty to defend – even if I might disagree with the particular views of protesters themselves.

I do not believe, however, that our proper defence of the right to peaceful protest should in any way diminish our zeal to come down hard on those who hide behind peaceful protests as an opportunity to disrupt lawful activity, inflict criminal damage and engage in violent disorder.

Cuadrilla, the company that is operating a test bore site, ahead of possible fracking, near Balcombe, has been through the rigorous planning process to secure consent for their current activity.

If it were to discover oil or gas, it would have to submit a further planning application to frack it.

Last winter my gas and electricity bill was clocking up nearly £200 per month.

I am fortunate, because I can afford it, but many of my constituents cannot, and they write to me in their hundreds to complain about it.

Unfortunately, there is not much we can do about it because we have to import most of our gas from Norway at the prevailing world market price. There are concerns about the future supply of electricity as our older and dirtier coal-fired power stations come to the end of their lives before we have replaced them with sufficient new renewable and nuclear capacity.

And there is not much enthusiasm among my constituents for renewable energy in the form of wind farms – either on shore, or off. So, given the prospect of significant resources of shale gas sitting beneath our feet which offers the possibility of reducing our bills and easing the prospect of an electricity generating crisis, my position is clear: I am an enthusiast for fracking.

The volume of protest would suggest there was something novel, unknown and particularly risky about the process.

There isn’t. We have been fracking in Britain for more than 25 years at some 200 sites without unpleasant side effects or protests. We have been using the technique to extract thermal energy from rocks deep below the surface, and the technology for extracting shale gas from the rocks is exactly the same.

So why the howl of protest the moment we start suggesting fracking for gas? The answer is simple: some environmental zealots believe this new cheaper energy source will diminish our zeal to invest in renewables by building unwanted wind farms.

Even as an enthusiast for fracking, I cannot offer an unconditional welcome for it everywhere in my constituency; it depends on the advantages and disadvantages of each specific location. But the whole purpose of our planning system is designed to address this.

Of course, there are risks associated with fracking, as there are with absolutely every economic enterprise.

The important thing is to take precautions and manage the risks. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee has investigated fracking and reported that the risks are manageable with proper regulation – that is why we have the toughest regulatory standards.

Inevitably there will always be those Luddites who oppose every innovation. People even protested against railways on the grounds that proximity to dairy farms would turn milk sour.

These protestors might be more comfortable returning to the Stone Age, but it would be disastrous if we let them call the shots.