Dizzy predicts that the government’s public consultation over nuclear power in the UK will be a
waste of time, that it is a foregone conclusion.
Their press release states that the government has reached the preliminary view that new nuclear would be in the public interest, yet also states that the consultation will help inform the decision due to be made later this year on whether it is in the public interest to give energy companies the option of building new nuclear power stations. Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton even planes to discuss this in a live web chat on the No.10 website.
A few minutes later, I read that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth had pulled out of the consultation saying they were unhappy with the way the government had presented the arguments, accusing them of using the process to promote nuclear energy. Environmental organisations have formed a coalition in protest, and branded the consultation process a “public relations stitch-up”.
This reminded me of a report I read recently which outlined the results of a survey from 332 UK local authorities for the House of Commons Public Administration Committee which found that 20% considered the consultations they had run had very little impact on decisions. And 20% said they merely confirmed decisions that were already made.
In a 2002 survey of local authorities by the ODPM, one in four authorities reported that exercises in public participation were only “occasionally influential” for decision making. And a recent DTI consultation on “managing the nuclear legacy” received only 63 responses, with reference being made about consultation fatigue and scepticism about the value of consultation.
I know controversial issues will mean very divided views, and you can’t please everyone, but how can government and local authority consult about contentious issues in a way that shows it is genuine? All publics have the right to have their views heard and considered. The government has lost the public’s confidence regarding nuclear power. Can government and environmental groups reach a common understanding when they ultimately should have the same goal?
Government, and local authorities, need to demonstrate that it means what it says, that no consultation is ever a formality, that they genuinely do consider everyone’s views. Easier said than done?
…the consultation will help inform the decision due to be made later this year on whether it is in the public interest … etc.
Whatever is the point? What a cynical exercise in “pretend” consultation.
I agree with James.
Alas Elle, in the real world
Public Consultations are stage managed.
After all if you want to push something thru, you ask the ‘public’ that is supportive
If you want to push something thru and there is opposition, you go thru the motions of letting them vent their angst or anger, and still proceeds – that’s how nuclear power, airport runways, by-passes and the invasion of Iraq get the go ahead.
And if you are really clever and don’t want to push something thru – you rely on any opposition to say your hands are tied.
Libdems in Cambridge are fond of saying their hands are tied by central government, or by conservatives in County Council – when pushing thru any controversial plans on Sheltered homes
What always surprises me is that if and when they allegedly ‘publicly’ oppose something, they don’t vote against it in Council.
Oh what a web of deceit and lies we weave, whether as individuals and/or as ‘government’
I think that they should consult AFTER the power stations have been built and preferably in residential areas.
Why ?
I posit that the consultees from future generations will be much more intelligent about things in general – two heads being better than one, sort of thing.
Neverheless, it is the best way forward.
Far the best form of power generation, the most efficient, least harmful, and conducive to technological innovation.
It is man’s future.
I’ll tell you.
They should come clean about why they want Nuclear Power.
It’s not to generate electricity. We don’t need it and it’s too expensive. Oh yes.
They want it for one reason only – to remain a Nuclear Power. To stay in the Nuclear race. To be at the forefront of Nuclear technology.
This is the problem with modern NuLab “consultation”. The motive is usually disguised and deflects from the debate we should be having.
What’s wrong with being at the forefront, Weggis ?
I don’t think we will be as it happens. We’ll be dependant on French scientists, engineers and technicians in order to do it. This is simply standing still, not about global hegmony.
60 million population and rising perhaps ? Russian stranglehold on gas supplies ? Instability in the Middle East ?
What is missing is leadership. Say what your going to do – then test it at an election.
“Consultations” are really the way politicians hide and duck decisions they know will be unpopular.
This country should have started building Nuclear power stations 10 years ago. Now we will have no choice but to extend the life of very old, less reliable and ultimately less safe reactors. Why ? Because Tony Blair wanted to win more elections and didn’t care about the future.
electro-kevin,
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with being at the forefront.
I am saying that we need to be clear about WHY we are doing it.
There is no value in Nuclear from a generation of electricity viewpoint, but there is from a Military viewpoint.
As always the politicos try to shift the emphasis of the debate to an area that is less likely to cause them problems and where they feel they can win.
This is a classic example. Don’t let them do it, I say. Force them out into the open. Let’s debate the REAL issue.
Here here ! Let’s debate all sorts of REAL issues whilst we’re at it – EU membership, corporal and capital punishment, withdrawing dole money from the workshy, controlling immigration …
… or are we being selective about what we scrutinise here ?
Yes, electro-kevin, all those issues have also had the emphasis modified to suit the politicos.
Here, though, I am addressing the question posed by the blog owner at the head of this post.
You got me there, Weggis 😉