Complaint
A viewer complained a report on fracking by the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt lacked impartiality because it presented the personal opinion of the presenter as fact, and failed to reflect Government and public support for using all available local sources of gas.  The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s Editorial Guidelines on impartiality.
Outcome
The Guidelines say correspondents are entitled to offer professional judgements, so long as such judgements are based on sound evidence.  Mr Rowlatt concluded his report about the Government’s decision to lift the ban on fracking in England by asking whether fracking would reduce people’s energy bills at a time when prices were rising steeply.  He said “Unfortunately the answer is no. Companies will sell any gas they produce at market prices and there won’t be enough gas to significantly affect thoseâ€.
Mr Rowlatt’s view reflected the widely held position of those who have studied the energy markets.  The ECU noted, for example, that the Climate Change Committee and the National Infrastructure Committee wrote to the then Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and said “Greater domestic production of fossil fuels may improve energy security, particularly this winter. But our gas reserves – offshore or from shale – are too small to impact meaningfully the prices faced by UK consumersâ€.  Similarly, Kwasi Kwarteng had published a series of tweets in February 2022 when Secretary of State at the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy which included the following: “Additional UK production won’t materially affect the wholesale market price. This includes fracking – UK producers won’t sell shale gas to UK consumers below the market price. They’re not charitiesâ€. Mr Rowlatt’s statement was therefore an evidence-based professional judgement and, as such, consistent with the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s standards of due impartiality.  Â
The report also included a contribution from the Business and Energy Secretary at the time and reflected his view the UK should do everything to ensure a secure supply of natural gas following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It also featured a contribution from the Group Director of the chemicals company INEOS who said his company backed the development of fracking because it believed the UK’s store of shale gas could turn out to be “as big as the North Seaâ€. The ECU did not therefore agree with the complainant that no attempt had been made “to analyse the reasoning why the Government (and many members of the public) see sense in making use of all locally available sources of gas (including fracking)â€.
Not Upheld