Revealed: secret Government-Industry plans to circumvent fracking opposition

But just how far they are willing to go to circumvent public opposition to fracking came in a letter Friends of the Earth was sent anonymously last week. The letter was from George Osborne, sent last September, to colleagues in the Cabinet’s Economic Affairs Committee, setting out how he wanted them to prioritise implementing the recommendations of a Cabinet Office report on how to get the shale gas industry going.

Of real interest here are the agreed plans between Government and fracking company Cuadrilla if their planning permission for fracking is turned down.

Remember that’s exactly what Lancashire’s planners have recommended councillors do when they vote this week. So what will happen if the councillors do refuse planning permission?

According to the letter It is agreed that:

“if permission turned down… Cuadrilla to respond to concerns and appeal asap”.

When that has happened, the Government will

“Prepare PINS to respond promptly to appeal or SoS recovery if appropriate”.

In layperson’s terms, that means the Government will make sure the Planning Inspectorate fast-tracks the appeal or that Communities Secretary Eric Pickles intervenes.

I’m sure Lancashire councillors will be shocked that the Government is plotting with Cuadrilla how to make sure that they can frack in Lancashire even if planning permission is refused. And the plans revealed in the letter stand in stark contrast to the line taken by the Prime Minister’s official spokesman last week that such decisions “should be up to local authorities”.

And how were these “asks” made? Has Cuadrilla been meeting Ministers and officials, or has it been a few quiet words in the right ears? For let’s not forget that Cuadrilla’s chairman Lord Browne works in the Cabinet Office as a Non-Executive Director.

The letter is also very revealing about longer-term plans for

“moving to full exploration”.

The Government clearly knows it’s losing the argument at the local level. Two recommendations stand out here:

“A cross-Government and industry group should be established … to assess the value and viability of focusing on a small number of sites in less contentious locations”

and

“Public sector land (particularly MoD owned) should be mapped to potential sites and explored for possible concept testing”

And the Government seems to accept that the bribes – sorry, benefits – it is offering top local communities to accept fracking aren’t working. The solution: it looks like offer them more. They plan to:

“examine the nature of benefits to be offered to local communities where shale developments take place”.

They know they’re not winning the wider battle for hearts and minds either, so the Government is going to carry on doing the industry’s PR job and

“build on existing network of neutral academic experts available to provide credible evidence-based views of matters of public concern. Develop a national communications plan on shale exploration”.

This isn’t the first evidence of collusion.

• Lord Browne already has form: he intervened personally with the then chair of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith, to try to exempt the company from compliance with drilling waste regulations.
• On another occasion, after a separate personal intervention by Lord Browne, Lord Smith “offered to halve the consultation time for a waste permit, agreed to intervene with a county council over Cuadrilla’s planning permission and to identify further risks to Cuadrilla’s plans.”
• Government and industry agreed ‘lines to take’ on the launch of Public Health England’s review of the health effects of shale gas exploration and production.

Today, Parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee has issued a report concluding that “extensive production of unconventional gas through fracking is inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the Climate Change Act” and that “an extensive range of uncertainties remains over particular hazards—to groundwater quality and water supplies, from waste and air emissions, to our health and to biodiversity, to the geological integrity of the areas involved, and from noise and disruption”.

The Committee’s conclusions on health echo those of the New York state report on the public health impacts of fracking. This concluded that “an assessment of the risk to public health must be supported by adequate scientific information to determine with confidence that the overall risk is sufficiently low to justify proceeding with [fracking] in New York. The current scientific information is insufficient. Furthermore, it is clear from the existing literature and experience that [fracking] has resulted in environmental impacts that are potentially adverse to public health. Until the science provides sufficient information to determine the level of risk to public health from [fracking] and whether the risks can be adequately managed, [fracking] should not proceed in New York State”.

This report led to a ban on fracking in New York state.

Rather than spend its time colluding with the industry to dismiss and circumvent public concern, Minsiters would do well to read these reports. Perhaps then they would take concerns about climate change and public health risks seriously and ban fracking. At the very least they must institute a moratorium while the risks are looked into further.