We’ve written a couple of times recently about the apparent return of hydraulic shale gas fracturing, or fracking. It first came up again in a big way in the Energy Strategy published in April, where we noted that the Government might have a fight on its hands amongst backbenchers to get any projects approved. After Liz Truss became Prime Minister in September, she announced that new licenses for fracking would be given “where there is local support”, something which again we highlighted might be a challenge when most communities won’t touch fracking with a thirty-foot barge pole.

It seems that the Government might have come to the same conclusion. So how have they decided to deal with the lack of “local support”? Well, according to an e-mail leaked to the Guardian today, the way they’ve decided to deal with it is by, well, not dealing with it. As reported in the outlet, the e-mail indicates that the Government is actively looking to exclude fracking applications from public consultation and engagement provisions. Another suggestions from the Secretary of State is about whether the Government could classify a debate in Parliament as a public consultation, to fulfil any requirements.

Perhaps more worryingly, they also seem to be looking to exclude fracking projects from judicial review, something which we’re sure TalkFracking would have something to say about. Even more alarmingly, the chief method being contemplated seems to be to use primary legislation, which, as we have also expressed concerns about before (and keep an eye out for more on this very shortly), is not amenable to challenge by judicial review.

Whilst the department insisted that it was still committed to consultation and meeting any other obligations, they also told the Guardian that “we can’t allow a veto from interest groups through methods like judicial review”. It seems that the commitments might not be quite so absolute as they are trying to portray.

We have written quite a lot about our concerns about the current state of public consultation at the central government level, and this would seem to be a particularly blatant and shocking attempt to prevent people who may have legitimate concerns from having any say. Particularly with things like fracking where there are a vast range of concerns amongst communities ranging from safety to aesthetics, and where the science on safety is still disputed, trying to shut out public scrutiny and comment is not simply a minor administrative problem, but downright unacceptable.

Whilst the e-mail does not constitute a fixed policy, and is instead more of an exploratory direction to the Civil Service, that such things could be seriously suggested by ministers reveals a deeply concerning attitude to the electorate, local communities and basic democratic principle. We hope that the Government will reconsider this ill-judged and irresponsible direction, and that Parliamentarians across parties will be effusive in cautioning against it.