News in brief

The NIRAH debate

Chiltern Radio has to be commended for hosting a debate on the Nirah project, which provided the opportunity for supporters and opponents alike to present their case. The speakers were Patrick Hall, MP, Madeline Russell, chairman of the County Council, Nadine Roberts, MP for Mid-Beds, Marc Scheimann, who represented the Green Party, and Professor Chris Shaw, the scientific expert on the project.

Frank Branston had been billed as a speaker, but the Borough had been advised by the county council alleging that he had a financial interest because he had given Nirah financial support. He had, but it was in the form of a very generous gift, not a loan. That was a pity, because he said he would have wished to counter some of the prejudicial comments made by opponents of the scheme.

First to speak was Madeline Russell, who is chairman of the County Council. She said that Bedfordshire supports the NIRAH project, and that it was part of their vision, providing the opportunity for additional jobs in the area. She was also very well aware of the massive majority who are in favour of the project.

She stated that they had provided funding for a business plan, but that this had not yet come. NIRAH had asked for a further £300 thousand, and at this point had received information that this might be against the law to provide further public funding. They had agreed to supply more money but this was subject to conditions that NIRAH was unwilling to accept.

Patrick Hall, whatever view one takes of the issue, gave the best speech of the evening. He saw the NIRAH project as representing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It would get rid of a scar on the landscape, provide opportunity for employment, be a major tourist attraction, be an excellent site to be used for research and education, making a significant contribution to this planet.

Nadine Dorries claimed emphatically that she was in favour of the project, but that there had to be some questions answered.  She saw that this would provide an opportunity of regeneration of Stewartby, and that Bedfordshire needs a project of this or a similar nature. However, she felt that there were questions that were not being answered. How much of the three million pounds have the directors taken? Where has the money gone? Why has the plan not been delivered? Was it professional to go to a pensions' home and take her fifty pounds, scratching around for money (loud boos greeted this comment). In her view the directors had not behaved in a professional way.

Professor Chris Shaw was the scientist spearheading the scheme, though he appeared to distance himself from the nuts and bolts of the project, speaking more in terms of the vision that he had. He said that it was a unique venture that had been some eight years in gestation, and that NIRAH would remove a scar from the landscape, making it into something beautiful. He cited the Eden project, and the impact it has had on local industry, and in particular referred to the scientific possibilities.

Marc Scheimann was the representative of the Luton and Bedfordshire Green Party. He claimed that the research was bad, it was a flawed project, would be used for researching and experimenting on animals, and that the establishment of NIRAH would lead to considerable congestion. It would be the Millennium dome of Bedfordshire. It had, he said, nothing to do with conservation.

Unfortunately, any undecided members of the audience, and there were a few, would have been put off by the venom with which he spoke, and his contribution was greeted with boos.

The first question from the floor was a bit of a red herring. During the intervening fortnight there had been a suggestion, reported in the papers, that NIRAH, dissatisfied with the response of the County Council, was in negotiations with Liverpool as a possible site for NIRAH.  The chairman of the County Council said that she was not party to any discussions between the two, and reiterated that she saw Bedford as a major visitor attraction. Chris Shaw said that a large number of possible venues had been examined by NIRAH, and Bedfordshire came out on top. Nadine Norries reiterated the fact that NIRAH had not delivered the goods in terms of the business plan, and that the project had been appraised by Price-Waterhouse-Cooper and, so we were told, the project was declared to be unviable. The whole project needed to be looked at again.

Nadine Dorries' remarks elicited a wry comment from Patrick Hall, who said that if she supports the NIRAH project as she claims, he wondered what it would be like if she were against it!

A question about a referendum prompted some discussion. Madeline commented that she was not against the idea, but believed that it was clear the majority were in favour. Nadine Dorries was bowled a googly when someone commented that she supports another project (Center Parc) whilst the majority opposed it, but appears to oppose NIRAH, which most support. Does she always ignore what people want? Her reply was not convincing, especially when it was reported from the audience that she had not consulted the local council!

A question was asked about the money advanced so far. Madeline Russell was emphatic that it is a loan, to be repaid wherever the project is built. But she again stated that she wanted the location to be Bedfordshire (applause).

A question was asked about the secrecy of the report. (This report, though commissioned by the County Council using rate-payers' money, has not been made available.)

Nadine Dorries said she would like to see it. But PWC wanted confidentiality, possibly frightened of litigation.

Madeline Russell said it was a commercially sensitive document and would do NIRAH no good if it were released. Had NIRAH itself been allowed to see it? The answer was no. Patrick Hall commented that public money had been used for this report; did the imposition of a confidentiality clause indicate that PWC had a lack of confidence it its own report?

So there we are. I trust I have been fair - scribbling away in a dark room is not the ideal situation for notes to be taken! In due course, I understand, an MP3 file of the debate will be available on the ChilternFM website.

What to make of all this? The implication by Nadine Dorries is that the way the money has been used had been somewhat hidden, but I am informed by an totally reliable source that Bedfordshire Consortium received a monthly report on how every penny had been spent and what funding was needed for the next month. All in all, the arguments for the project were convincing. The Green Party representative did little good to his cause by the venom with which he spoke, and Nadine Dorries, to be honest, came over somewhat as a person trying to make this a bit of a cause célèbre. She had, in a previous meeting, been described as a bit of a "loose cannon" - which seemed to me to be a totally apt observation.

Where this leads us is difficult to tell. Unfortunately, no director of the NIRAH project was present to field some of the questions expressing unease about the money side, and the way that this project has changed (evolved?) over the past few months. There were a few opponents to the scheme, and not surprisingly they were the most vocal, but it has to be said that the overwhelming majority of those present wanted this interesting project to go ahead. One can only hope that a little more flexibility by our County Council, not known for its vision, might result in the final loan being made, so that the scheme can go ahead.

Since this was written, Chiltern FM have released the MP3 files (there are two) of the debate. They can be downloaded from here.

See here for details of the impact the Eden Project's scheme has had in education, and on the local community.