Abstract
John Howell, counsel for the FoE was essentially speaking for all objectors, and, probably, for many fair-minded people in the Board and in the nuclear industry generally. He was aware of the views of Mr John Moore, at the time Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Energy:
Overall, the Inquiry will be a very elaborate exercise absorbing a great deal of time. Nevertheless, it will be time well spent. It will ensure that we get the eventual decision right and that we are seen to have got it right. (emphasis in original, 2, 65C)
Both speakers were reflecting on the Inquiry’s public image. Mr Howell was particularly concerned about the Inquiry’s fairness as applied to the rights of objecting parties. Mr Moore seemed content so long as the Inquiry was seen to be fair to the arguments, not necessarily to all the participants.
Sir, funding the objectors is the only way in which the public will be reassured that PWR technology is acceptable. … It is in the national interest, and, indeed in the Board’s interest that this Inquiry should be seen to be fair, full and thorough. Unless funding is made available it will not be seen to be so. [Funding might also ensure] in the battle with the Goliath of the Electricity Board, that at least David in this case has a sling. (Preliminary Meeting, 2 June 1982, 27D, 24F (emphasis added))
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Armstrong, J. (1985) Sizewell Report: A New Approach for Major Public Inquiries ( Town and Country Planning Association, London).
Berger, T. (1978) New Frontier, New Homeland. Department of Indian and Northern Affairs ( Government Printing Office, Ottawa).
Department of the Environment (1985) ‘Preparing for Major Planning Inquiries in England and Wales: A Code of Practice’ ( Department of the Environment, London).
Department of the Environment (1986) ‘Planning: Appeals, Call-In and Major Public Inquiries. The Government’s Response to the Fifth Report of the Environment Committee, Session 1985–86’, Cm 43 ( HMSO, London ).
Environment Committee (1986) Planning: Appeals, Call-In and Major Public Inquiries, HC Paper 181 ( HMSO, London ).
Graham, K. A., Moore, E. G., Brown, M. P. S. and King, A. J. C. (1982) ‘An Evaluation of Funding of Public Participation in the Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment Panel Review’ (Institute of Local Government, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario).
Jeffrey, M. (1986) ‘The Appropriateness of Dealing with Scientific Evidence in the Adversarial arena’, Environmental and Planning Law Journal, vol. 3, pp. 313–321.
Mann, M. (1982) ‘Problems of the Local Planning Inquiry’, in J. Salter and J.Thomas (eds), Planning Law for Industry ( International Bar Association, London) Section 23.
Parker, R. (1978) The Windscale Inquiry ( HMSO, London).
Parker, R. (1982) ‘The Major Inquiry—some Practical Considerations’, in R. Macrory (ed.), Commercial Nuclear Power: Legal and Constitutional Issues. ( Imperial College, London ) pp. 47–56.
Purdue, H. M. and Kemp, R. (1985) ‘A Case for Funding Objectors at Public Inquiries?’, Journal of Planning and Environment Law, October, pp. 675–85.
Stott, M. and Taylor, P. (1980) The Nuclear Power Controversy ( Town and Country Planning Association, London).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1988 Timothy O’Riordan, Ray Kemp and Michael Purdue
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
O’Riordan, T., Kemp, R., Purdue, M. (1988). Funding. In: Sizewell B. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07904-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07904-9_11
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-07906-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-07904-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)