Hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ has been the topic of much debate over recent years in the UK due to the desire to exploit the UK’s significant onshore resources of shale gas . In this essay ‘government’ refers to the Conservative-led governing body of England. Current government policy is aiming to start shale gas fracking as soon as possible. There has been a lot of public opposition to the Government’s stance. Yet, the Government still stands by the belief that fracking will benefit the security of supply and promote the transition ‘to a low carbon economy’ . In this context, ‘adequately regulated’ is the situation where the UK’s regulations ensure that the safety and health of the environment and population will not be degraded in favour of the economy. This essay argues that fracking regulations in the United Kingdom seem procedurally adequate but are not substantively adequate for three key reasons. Firstly, the Government has framed their approach to fracking in a way that is virtually inaccessible to the British public. Furthermore, there is a serious lack of knowledge of the consequences of fracking upon the environment, and the information we do have leaves a lot of ambiguity. Lastly, it is important to analyse England’s substantive and procedural approach and compare it to that of Scotland.

The Government’s manipulation of regulatory ‘dexterity’ and regularity ‘domain’ to create the illusion of adequate fracking regulation

The Government has fought to emphasise the rigorous nature of the UK regulatory controls. However, it has also argued against the need for specialist regulation in this area. This reflects the Government’s strategies of regulatory ‘domain’ (looking at legislation in the abstract) and regulatory ‘dexterity’ (looking at legislation in detail). Framing involves ‘the social construction of reality’. It is an issue ‘which invites interpretation’ and ‘is likely to differ substantially depending on the interests of those involved’ . This underpins a key issue with fracking in the UK; regulatory ‘domain’ and regulatory ‘dexterity’ are ways in which the Government can ‘frame’ fracking issues in a way that promotes their aims, often at the expense of due process, the health of the environment and the health of the British public, as will be exemplified throughout this essay.

When applying arguments of regulatory ‘dexterity’, the Government places emphasis on the market-transforming potential of a new supply of shale gas . These arguments are used to promote fracking as a positive innovation that has different end products and new benefits compared with traditional gas production . The focus of the Government is to eliminate regulation that inhibits its development of fracking. It can therefore be argued that in doing so, the Government is not ensuring that fracking is adequately regulated as the focus is placed on speeding up the fracking process, rather than guaranteeing the protection of the environment and population’s health from the risks of