Difference between revisions of "Nirex"
m (→Suppressing information) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Suppressing information== | ==Suppressing information== | ||
| − | According to Greenpeace, Nirex refused to release a list of some 537 areas identified as potential nuclear dump sites in the UK, despite repeated requests to do so under the Freedom of Information Act. When it finally acquiesced, Nirex | + | According to Greenpeace, Nirex refused to release a list of some 537 areas identified as potential nuclear dump sites in the UK, despite repeated requests to do so under the Freedom of Information Act. When it finally acquiesced, Greenpeace says, Nirex "admitted it withheld releasing the dump-site list until after the May 2005 General Election. It admitted it held on to the list in order to avoid any politicians being able to make statements of opposition to a dump site in their area during the election. Nirex denied people the opportunity to discuss this issue with prospective MPs - which may have influenced how they voted. It is also suspected that media debate on the prospects of new reactors - which are heavily dependent on a solution to being found to nuclear waste if they are to get the go-ahead - coloured NIREX's view on whether or not to publish the list before the election." [http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?CFID=4078741&CFTOKEN=32251312&ucidparam=20050826173313&MenuPoint=D-E-F] |
==Sexing up Nukes== | ==Sexing up Nukes== | ||
Revision as of 11:08, 14 February 2006
|
Individuals
Companies |
Contents
Background
Nirex is a government-controlled agency established in 1980 to oversee the storage of radioactive waste. It is charged with finding a long-term repository for the waste which will remain deadly for millions of years.
Suppressing information
According to Greenpeace, Nirex refused to release a list of some 537 areas identified as potential nuclear dump sites in the UK, despite repeated requests to do so under the Freedom of Information Act. When it finally acquiesced, Greenpeace says, Nirex "admitted it withheld releasing the dump-site list until after the May 2005 General Election. It admitted it held on to the list in order to avoid any politicians being able to make statements of opposition to a dump site in their area during the election. Nirex denied people the opportunity to discuss this issue with prospective MPs - which may have influenced how they voted. It is also suspected that media debate on the prospects of new reactors - which are heavily dependent on a solution to being found to nuclear waste if they are to get the go-ahead - coloured NIREX's view on whether or not to publish the list before the election." [1]
Sexing up Nukes
Nirex has also been accused of "sexing up" a report on nuclear dumping, according to The Guardian, [2]. The paper had obtained a leaked copy of an Environment Agency document sent to Ministers that concluded "Nirex present an overly optimistic view," of dumping. Nirex presented arguments in which the agency says: "The positive arguments are given prominence and corresponding negative arguments are not examined." The papers notes that "[c]hief among the concerns is that the proposed concrete and steel containers used to bury waste could leak within 500 years. Despite that, the agency says the report has not identified any 'major' issues that would scupper such an underground store and declares the concept 'viable'.
Nuclear Spinners Working for Nirex
The Following PR Companies have provided PR advice to Nirex since 2003:
- Promise PR - To provide Professional Consultancy regarding a posssible change in company name - £45,000
- Kingsmead Communications Limited - To provide professional consultancy and support in the area of media relations and corporate communications - £25,000
- Fleishman Hillard - (formerly GPC) - To provide corporate communications advice in relation to the Scottish Parliament - £129,900
- Fleishman Hillard - To provide corporate communications advice in relation to the European Parliament - £53,200
- Connect - To provide corporate communications advice in relation to Westminster and the National Assembly for Wales - £72,200
- Bell Pottinger - To provide commmunications advice related to the Nirex pension fund - £24,000
- International Futures Forum - Praxis Limited - To provide Corporate Communications advice in relation to the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) consultation programme - £32,000
- ForthRoad Limited - To help facilitate external events - £29,000
- Facilitating Change Limited - To help facilitate external events - £14,800
- The Future Foundation - To help facilitate external evetns and to help draft corporate communications materials - £31,500
- ERM - To undertake an asssement of stakeholder views of Nirex - £32,600
- MORI - To undertake a public opinion survey - £30,000 - due to be repeated in 2005/06
- Women's Insitute - To participate in a workshop to discuss radioactive waste management - £5,000
[Ref: D. Wild (2005) Freedom of Information Request, Letter to Jean McSorley, Senior Advisor to Greenpeace UK, 15 July]
In addition, Good Relations list Nirex as a client on its website as well [3]. According to Good Relations, "it has advised Nirex, the UK’s nuclear waste agency, during the last five years as it moved to become an independent body. This has been a highly sensitive project requiring a co-ordinated media, stakeholder and political communications strategy. It has involved working closely with a number of Government departments including the MoD (in particular on the ISOLUS nuclear submarine project); DTI, Defra and No10.
Key Personnel
| Chairman: | Cliff Williams |
| Chief Executive: | Chris Murray |
| Non-Executive Director: | Meta Ramsay |
| Non-Executive Director: | John Kempster |
| Non-Executive Director: | Jason Nissé |
| Executive Director: | Ann McCall |
| Executive Director: | Ann McCall |
Related Links
- David Adam, "Eco soundings", The Guardian, January 11, 2006
