Scottish government accused of misleading public over fracking ban

Scottish Minister Nicola Sturgeon has been accused of misleading the general public after it was discovered that fracking operations in Scotland have not been banned, despite the government claiming to have implemented a moratorium. Petrochemicals company Ineos and Aberdeen-based Reach CSG had taken Scottish ministers to court in a bid to overturn the ‘effective ban’, only to find that a temporary ban had been placed in 2015 and a final decision has yet to be made. Commenting on the court findings, Ineos’ Operations Director Tom Pickering said: ‘We came to the Court of Session to review the Scottish government’s position on onshore unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland. We were astonished to learn during proceedings that the Scottish government claims that it has not issued a ban on fracking in Scotland, and indeed there may never be one. The position of the Scottish government that has now been stated in court represents a staggering U-turn on the policy direction announced by the Energy Minister during Parliamentary debate in October last year, and by the First Minister when she said in Parliament “Scotland should welcome the fact that fracking in Scotland is banned”.’

He continued: ‘The developments during the judicial review process undermine the statements made by ministers and cast further uncertainty and ambiguity across the policy framework for onshore unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland. We took ministers and the government at their word. Sadly we seem to have reached the Alice-in-Wonderland situation where a business has to go to the Scottish courts to establish whether announcements in Holyrood can be taken at face value. As a result, there is now an unpredictable and uncertain environment for business in Scotland.’

In response, a Scottish government spokesperson stated: ‘The Scottish government’s preferred position is that it does not support the development of unconventional oil and gas. As we have made clear, this position is subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment. It remains inappropriate to comment further during the judicial review process.’