I hope that their commitment to explaining their decisions in full will avoid similar confusion in future. I am satisfied that there is no other information relevant to Dr G’s request to be disclosed. SOUND decision henceforth to disclose, as a matter of course, the reasons behind all decisions taken under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 is a welcome development. Two pieces of European Community legislation are relevant to the effect of the barrage on the wading birds’ habitat. A directive of the Council of the European Communities, issued in 1979 (the Birds Directive). In May 1997, the Secretary of State for Wales decided to review the barrage project.
He considered the financial, economic and How to Calculate Depreciation environmental implications of completing and, alternatively, of discontinuing it; and also sought advice on the legal status of the 1991 decision to exclude Cardiff Bay from the special protection area. On 1 December, the Secretary of State met a delegation which included Ms C. At that meeting, the Secretary of State delivered a statement explaining why he had decided not to stop the barrage project.
Members of the delegates were given copies of the statement, which runs to four pages. It is not necessary to quote the statement in full the part which summarises the Secretary of State’s decision reads.On 22 December, the interest group wrote, citing the Code, to the Secretary of State. They asked to be given the facts and the analysis of the facts which the government considered relevant to the decision not to prevent the barrage project from proceeding.
The Welsh Office replies on 9 January 1998. They said that, in their view, information about the review of the project should not be made available under the Code. It was an internal review for the benefit of the Secretary of State, and the details were not available to the public. On 28 January, Msc wrote to the Welsh Office, asking them to review their decision.