ooking 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 fracking.

The Government has decided to leave much of the substantive rules as they are while making new provisions for implementation . An important example of ‘regulatory dexterity’ is the Finance Act 2014. This Act results in an effective tax rate of 30% as the new onshore allowance exempts a portion of profits from the supplementary charge . Before this Act, profits from oil and gas extraction were taxed at a total rate of 62% . This tax reduction provides clear motivation for industries that can consequently make a higher profit from the fracking industry. This is concerning as it encourages companies to rush to start fracking.

The Government has introduced two pieces of secondary legislation in order to streamline the planning procedure . This demonstrates the insufficient level and quality of regulation in England concerning fracking as the ‘new’ regulations being introduced make it easier to frack and have not been given the appropriate level of scrutiny . This demonstrates the urgency felt by the Government to reform certain aspects of regulation that cover fracking. It also suggests that ‘regulatory dexterity’ often leads to requirements of due process not being fulfilled and a manipulative use of delegated legislation that allows changes to go almost unnoticed.

The Government uses regulatory ‘domain’ in order to create an environment in Britain where it is easier for fracking to commence. The Government claims the general regulations that are already in existence, found in The Petroleum Act 1998 for example, are broad enough to cover fracking so new and specific regulations are not necessary. The lack of data around fracking means that the Government cannot be sure that these regulati