Three campaign organisations have taken the first step in a legal challenge to the government’s lifting of the moratorium on fracking in England.
Photo: Parliament Live TV
Friends of the Earth, Talk Fracking and Preston New Road Action Group have sent a letter before action to the business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg.
He announced on 22 September that the moratorium on fracking, in place for almost three years, had been lifted and the government would consider future applications for hydraulic fracturing consent.
The business secretary said more shale gas sites were needed to “gather better data and improve the evidence base”:
“Lifting the pause on shale gas extraction will enable drilling to gather this further data, building an understanding of UK shale gas resources and how we can safely carry out shale gas extraction in the UK where there is local support.”
The letter before action said the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS), which accompanied Mr Rees-Mogg’s announcement, was unlawful and irrational.
It called on the minister to withdraw the document immediately. He should reinstate the previous policy set out in a WMS in November 2019, which introduced the moratorium, the letter said.
The groups said if the business secretary refused to do this, they would then make an application for a judicial review. They set a deadline for a government response of 6pm on Friday 28 October 2022.
Susan Holliday, of Preston New Road Action Group, which opposed Cuadrilla’s fracking site in Lancashire, said:
“Residents living close to the site at Preston New Road know the impacts of fracking and have not forgotten how disruptive it is to their lives.
“Communities like ours should not have to endure the risks that fracking poses to health, wellbeing and our homes, especially when there are safer, more sustainable, alternatives available. We are ready to mount our opposition and see off fracking once again.”
Will Rundle, head of legal at Friends of the Earth, said:
“Time and again people have been promised no more fracking unless it could be carried out safely and sustainably, without putting communities at risk of unpredictable earthquakes,” said Mr Rundle.
“The government first made this commitment in 2019, then again as part of its election manifesto and most recently within the British Energy Strategy.
“Despite all this, the business secretary has broken his party’s promise. Fracking for gas is, once again, being put above the wellbeing of communities threatened with it where they live, and the climate which will only deteriorate further if it goes ahead – something none of us can afford.
“We consider this disregard for people and planet, as well as the betrayal of public trust, not only to be dishonest but unlawful. We’ve written to the minister to explain our reasoning and to urge him to reverse this disastrous policy or face legal action.”
Joe Corre, of Talk Fracking, said:
“This government under Liz Truss is completely irresponsible and out of control. Fracking will be another disaster.
“PM Truss is already aware of this due the report by DEFRA when she was in charge at that department. She delayed its publication and then heavily redacted it.
“When the final full report was published due to an FOI legal challenge, it showed what we knew all along: it’s a disaster for the economy, house values, and the environment. An exercise in self-harm.”
Details
The three groups, represented by Leigh Day solicitors, said the previous WMS, issued when the moratorium was imposed in 2019, led to a legitimate expectation that the government would support fracking only if there was compelling new evidence that the process was safe and that concerns about induced seismicity had been addressed.
They said the 2022 WMS did not provide this evidence. It referred only to a review by the British Geological Survey, commissioned by the government. But this did not show that fracking could be done in a safe and sustainable way, they said.
The BGS report was a desk top review only, they said, and it concluded that the ability to evaluate and mitigate risks from seismicity induced by fracking remained a challenge.
The groups said said the 2022 WMS had no lawful basis for departing from the previous commitment. The business secretary could not show that the shift of policy was a proportionate response to a legitimate aim pursued in the public interest, they said.
They also said there should be a public consultation before such a significant policy shift. But this had not happened.
The new WMS also failed to take into account advice on fracking from the government’s climate advisor, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), they said.
The CCC had said the moratorium should not be lifted without an in-depth independent review of the evidence on the climate impact. The groups said there was no evidence that this review had been carried out.
Rowan Smith, solicitor at Leigh Day, said:
“The government’s promise could not have been clearer: no fracking, unless proven to be safe. The Secretary of State is still apparently concerned about safety, but has reassured Parliament that fracking can go ahead nonetheless, despite no consultation with local communities affected and no evidence to support that position from either the British Geological Society or the Committee on Climate Change.
“The latter advised that fracking is not compatible with Net Zero, a rather unsafe position to be in, unless certain tests have been met. Yet such tests have been completely ignored by this government. This is why our clients consider that the government has acted unlawfully and have written to ministers to demand a U-turn.”
DRILL OR DROP? 
Rees Mogg will be rather worried that the inevitable full disclosure required by this process will expose him both here and in several other areas. This should be very interesting!
Absolutely, Refracktion,
It is poetic justice that Rees-Mogg may now feel a little of the worry which he has been inflicting upon those of us who had no choice in living close to a fracking site, in the sacrifice-zone of Lancashire.
and thats the effing problem – U campaigners have let down this country along with councils and successive government who r too scared to overide these fanatics and why dont have Home grown energy resources – because of lunacy delaying tactics
1) End UK OPEN DOOR IMMIGRATION – Open door immigration means more people using resources including energy
2) UK GOV SHould override local complaints in the national interest of being self reliant
3) UK GoV should closed down immigration including family claims for next 25yrs
4) WIND AND SOLAR are unreliable
You have to love the kippers 😂
[Comment removed by moderator]
In case you had not noticed, we already left th e EU which was providing a lot of good care workers, fruit pickers, doctors and nurses, etc etc. I won’t go on!
For which UK can now set quotas, CJR.
U campaigners? You mean tax paying citizens of the U.K. and that have the same right as anyone else to vote for and against anything they support or object to.
Let down the country? How? Fracking will not lower gas prices, any gas would be sold at market high prices. The gas is owned by the companies, not the U.K. Fracking is still unproven, the size of the reserve unknown, and it will have absolutely minimal impact on energy security.
Too scared to override “fanatics”? Where is your evidence? Just because a decision may not go the way you hoped, you cannot claim the decisions were made out of fear. That is nonsense, or do you think Boris was “scared” and shaking in his boots when he put the moratorium in place?
It is delay in investing in energy efficiency and green energy that has left us in the state we are in today.
[Comment removed by moderator]
Not going too well for you Bruce ? I’m not sure that your random use of capital letters adds anything to your comments.
Oh and i want to see conventional/unconventional near where am i here in area around weymouth/dorchester and also where nuclear winfrith was (mini nuclear power station via RollsRoyce)
That’s fine Bruce Fox, you, like everyone else is entitled to your opinion. But I suspect you will be in the minority with regard to fracking.
So. paid lobbyists are lobbying Moggy!
Shock/horror. Fortunately, I will not be supporting them, as my spare pennies are going on energy costs.
Fracking will lower energy prices locally. That has been stated numerous times. It is being calculated currently. That has been stated numerous times. KatT seems still to have missed that, but it remains the proposition. Until the size of the reserves are defined it is also ludicrous to state that energy security would not be influenced. That is just a contradiction.
Maybe Drs and those with 3- liter BMWs may not worry about their energy bills come next April, but there will be plenty who will.
“Fracking will lower energy prices locally. That has been stated numerous times”
By Martin and without evidence: so ignore – see warning on the 16th re pronouncements dependent upon Collyarithmetic.
“It is being calculated currently.”
What is? The size of the bribe?
“That has been stated numerous times.”
What has? As Truss has discovered, repetition of nonsense does not make sense of nonsense.
“KatT seems still to have missed that,….”
On the contrary Kat T seems adept at spotting nonsense.
“but it remains the proposition.”
What does?
“Until the size of the reserves are defined it is also ludicrous to state that energy security would not be influenced. That is just a contradiction.” Not at all. Other factors are involved in assessing security, such as the extractability of any reserves given the various parameters – geological, sociological, and scientific. Energy security, furthermore, is hardly furthered by actions which further endanger the planet by increasing the gaseous components of our present predicament.
Perhaps we should continue to shelve your ex cathedra pronouncements.
The evidence has been supplied, 1720, eg. by Charles McAllister, director of policy at UK on Shore Oil & Gas.
You may have missed it, together with KatT. So, you are unaware of the information, and other information you are aware of you have to “interpret” would have changed if the author had lived! Yet, you then refer to a “bribe,” so you are aware of something but wish to present you are not.
I am not sure who you believe are your target audience, 1720. Denial of what has been proposed may keep a few antis cosey, but for anyone looking at your comments who are not already antis then you very clearly want to define your own inadequate level of knowledge. In your own words, increasing the gaseous components of your present predicament. No wonder you try and deflect to the “wes”, but whether there are many who wish to be tarred with your brush is questionable. There are more people who want to make informed decisions than those who want to make decisions without being informed.
An example of what Martin considers evidence, taken from a McAllister article in the Yorkshire Post, since comprehensively demolished by those better informed:
“Had the Government not banned fracking in 2019, the industry could have been warming UK homes with UK shale gas this winter while helping to reduce the large increases in energy bills the country is facing.
…….
Shale gas development has the potential to drive billions in investment into the North of England, creating tens of thousands of well-paid and skilled jobs, as well as billions in tax revenue for decades.
…..
Polling showed that most people in the North of England would back fracking in their local area if they received 25 per cent off their annual energy bill, which the community benefits offer can deliver. It should also be noted that £100,000 goes to the local community for each exploration site.
……
If the UK doesn’t boost its gas production from the enormous and world class Bowland shale formation in the North of England, we will lock ourselves into reliance on more polluting and more expensive gas imports for decades. “
This is Collyarithmetic evidence.
I’ll ignore the rest of your post, Martin, but do work on intelligibility and on spelling.
Ahh, so you are aware of an example, 1720. That is a start, but not the reference I was referring to.
However, looking at the examples you quoted none of that has been comprehensively demolished, as no one has the evidence to do so. McAllister made some assertions that may or may not be proven correct, but it is impossible to demolish them without attempting to prove whether they are correct or not. That has not been done.
The first statement is actually unquestionably factually correct. The key word being “could”. Impossible to comprehensively demolish.
So, by definition your assertion is unintelligible.
I agree you should ignore some of my post, 1720. You get yourself in enough of a mess with the bits you don’t ignore.
“ However, looking at the examples you quoted none of that has been comprehensively demolished, as no one has the evidence to do so. McAllister made some assertions that may or may not be proven correct, but it is impossible to demolish them without attempting to prove whether they are correct or not. That has not been done.”
And yet you cite McAllister as your evidence.
I rest my case!
The same ratiocinative process which underlies Collyarithmetic.
“Not the reference I was referring to” was within my post, 1720.
You should indeed rest your case. That is a pretty poor attempt even by your standards.
However, looking at the evidence you quoted, none of that has been comprehensively demolished. You proposed it had, but it simply hasn’t. The first statement I referenced from your evidence is factually correct. It has not been demolished at all.
“Jury, please note the evidence provided is not to be relied upon. Facts are to be considered, not opinions.”