This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/6364281.stm

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 11 Version 12
Nuclear review 'was misleading' Nuclear review 'was misleading'
(about 1 hour later)
A High Court judge has ordered a rethink of the government's nuclear power plans, after a legal challenge by environmental campaigners Greenpeace.A High Court judge has ordered a rethink of the government's nuclear power plans, after a legal challenge by environmental campaigners Greenpeace.
A judge ruled that the consultation process before making the decision last year had been "misleading", "seriously flawed" and "procedurally unfair". A judge ruled that the consultation process before the decision last year had been "misleading", "seriously flawed" and "procedurally unfair".
Greenpeace said the ministers should "go back to the drawing board". Greenpeace said ministers should "go back to the drawing board".
Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said the government would re-consult, but still favoured nuclear power. But Tony Blair said while the ruling would change the consultation process, "this won't affect the policy at all".
He told the BBC they could appeal but accepted the judge's ruling and would consult again, although there was "a race against time" with climate change. The government will consult again, but still favoured nuclear power being "back on the agenda".
There was also the need to ensure the UK was not overly-reliant on imports of oil and gas, he said. "If we don't replace the existing nuclear power stations then, first, I can not see how we are going to meet our climate change targets," he said.
Mr Darling said "counter views" would be taken into consideration, but "on a matter so important as climate change it just isn't possible to stand back and say: 'We don't have any views'". "And secondly we will end up as we move as a country from self sufficiency in gas to importing large amounts of foreign gas.... we are going to be dependent on very uncertain supplies of energy and that would be bad for business and bad for the consumer."
The government also stressed that the judge's ruling was on the "process of consultation, not the principle of nuclear power". The government has stressed that the judge's ruling was on the "process of consultation, not the principle of nuclear power".
'Updating''Updating'
Greenpeace's Emma Gibson told the BBC: "The government's so-called consultation was a sham and we are very pleased the judge has agreed with us on that.Greenpeace's Emma Gibson told the BBC: "The government's so-called consultation was a sham and we are very pleased the judge has agreed with us on that.
"If Tony Blair wants to continue with his misguided plan for a whole new generation of nuclear power stations, the government will have to go back to the drawing board.""If Tony Blair wants to continue with his misguided plan for a whole new generation of nuclear power stations, the government will have to go back to the drawing board."
The government has been shown up as fundamentally deceitful Alan Duncan, Conservatives Send us your comments Nick Assinder analysis Reaction to rulingThe government has been shown up as fundamentally deceitful Alan Duncan, Conservatives Send us your comments Nick Assinder analysis Reaction to ruling
In 2003, the Energy White Paper described nuclear power as an "unattractive option".In 2003, the Energy White Paper described nuclear power as an "unattractive option".
It said before any decision was taken to build more stations, there would have to be "the fullest possibly public consultation and the publication of a further white paper setting out our proposals."It said before any decision was taken to build more stations, there would have to be "the fullest possibly public consultation and the publication of a further white paper setting out our proposals."
The government launched a fresh energy review in January 2006, and after public consultation in July published a report, The Energy Challenge, which said "new nuclear power stations would make a significant contribution to meeting our energy policy goals".The government launched a fresh energy review in January 2006, and after public consultation in July published a report, The Energy Challenge, which said "new nuclear power stations would make a significant contribution to meeting our energy policy goals".
In court, Greenpeace said the consultation had not fulfilled the promise to carry out "the fullest public consultation".In court, Greenpeace said the consultation had not fulfilled the promise to carry out "the fullest public consultation".
It complained that there had been a failure to present clear proposals and information on key issues, such as disposal of radioactive waste and building costs.It complained that there had been a failure to present clear proposals and information on key issues, such as disposal of radioactive waste and building costs.
'Radically wrong''Radically wrong'
The government had argued that the energy review was only part of an ongoing process which would ensure full consultation.The government had argued that the energy review was only part of an ongoing process which would ensure full consultation.
But Mr Justice Sullivan said "something has gone clearly and radically wrong".But Mr Justice Sullivan said "something has gone clearly and radically wrong".
The consultation document had given every appearance of being simply an "issues paper".The consultation document had given every appearance of being simply an "issues paper".
There could be no proper consultation, let alone the fullest consultation Mr Justice Sullivan Profile: Mr Justice Sullivan Labour and nuclear lobbyThere could be no proper consultation, let alone the fullest consultation Mr Justice Sullivan Profile: Mr Justice Sullivan Labour and nuclear lobby
It had contained no actual proposals and the information given to consultees had been "wholly insufficient for them to make an intelligent response".It had contained no actual proposals and the information given to consultees had been "wholly insufficient for them to make an intelligent response".
The judge said information given on waste had been "not merely inadequate but also misleading".The judge said information given on waste had been "not merely inadequate but also misleading".
Fairness required that consultees should be given a proper opportunity to respond to that substantial amount of new material before any decision was taken.Fairness required that consultees should be given a proper opportunity to respond to that substantial amount of new material before any decision was taken.
'Tough choices''Tough choices'
"There could be no proper consultation, let alone the fullest consultation, if the substance of these two issues was not consulted on before a decision was made," said the judge."There could be no proper consultation, let alone the fullest consultation, if the substance of these two issues was not consulted on before a decision was made," said the judge.
"There was therefore procedural unfairness and a breach of Greenpeace's legitimate expectation that there would be the fullest consultation before a decision was taken.""There was therefore procedural unfairness and a breach of Greenpeace's legitimate expectation that there would be the fullest consultation before a decision was taken."
A guide to nuclear powerA guide to nuclear power
The judge granted what he called a "quashing order".The judge granted what he called a "quashing order".
Shadow trade and industry secretary Alan Duncan said: "This is an astonishing ruling.Shadow trade and industry secretary Alan Duncan said: "This is an astonishing ruling.
"What it really says is that the government has been shown up as fundamentally deceitful.""What it really says is that the government has been shown up as fundamentally deceitful."
Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Chris Huhne said: "The judgement really shows you can't perform a 180-degree U-turn on a matter as important as nuclear power without a proper public debate.Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Chris Huhne said: "The judgement really shows you can't perform a 180-degree U-turn on a matter as important as nuclear power without a proper public debate.
"It's a real slap in the face for prime minister's sofa style of government.""It's a real slap in the face for prime minister's sofa style of government."
And Green Party principal speaker Sian Berry said: "Today's historic result shows that the government have got a fight on their hands.And Green Party principal speaker Sian Berry said: "Today's historic result shows that the government have got a fight on their hands.
"The Energy Review was clearly just a rubber-stamping exercise for a decision the prime minister had already taken.""The Energy Review was clearly just a rubber-stamping exercise for a decision the prime minister had already taken."
The government says its proposals, including building more nuclear plants, will cut carbon emissions by 19 to 25 million tonnes by 2020, compared with projections based on current trends.The government says its proposals, including building more nuclear plants, will cut carbon emissions by 19 to 25 million tonnes by 2020, compared with projections based on current trends.
In January, Mr Blair said it was important to ensure that the UK had a diverse energy supply, including nuclear power. Mr Blair announced in January that a white paper would be published next month. It is not yet clear whether the court ruling will lead to a rethink on timing.
"If we don't get these decisions right, and get them right quickly, we will pay a very heavy price in the future."
He announced in January that a white paper would be published next month. It is not yet clear whether the court ruling will lead to a rethink on timing.