A couple of points of clarification about what's been happening.
HA requested from the start a friendly and constructivenice meeting, anytime any place with EH, together with Lord Avebury, but we made a single stipulation – that we saw the project as a matter requiring strategic decisions, not merely operational ones so we requested that a representative of the commission attend. EH offered a meeting, but without the presence of such a person, so we declined it. We would meet them tomorrow if that single provision could be offered.
It's not strictly true that HA has been invited to the Peer Group Review. The invitation came to me personally, and mention of HA was omitted (whereas it hadn't been in previous letters).
It's not the case that I've turned the invitation down. I haven't responded yet. My own present feeling is that I should decline. HA is yet to decide on the matter.
My own strictly personal feelings are that a peer group review, even one that conformed with the normally understood meaning of the term, is a cynically familiar and very poor substitute for "public review" by means of full and open disclosure of all the facts for the public to judge for themselves. We tend to forget, it's our hill, it's our money, and most of all they are our facts and there is no respectable reason why they shouldn't be out in the open.
But there's more. The peer group review ISN'T what a peer group review is supposed to be – a rigorous independent investigation, that common sense would suggest ought to take months. It's a one day conference, comprising set presentations by EH that no doubt will then be published on their website. And the invitees, as I understand it, will comprise at least two thirds EH people. I'd describe it as Huttonesque, but that would clearly be too kind.
I am also worried there's a further reason for the adoption of this format: it's billed as being effectively a joint discussion about what to do next. I fear that due to the delay, any repair work will now reveal the weaknesses that have developed and that any procedure will result in further collapses, particularly to the sides of the main shaft. I don't want to be associated with those procedures, however remotely. I'd rather an independent engineering firm did it's best and have the blame for the collateral damage rest exactly on the shoulders of those who have allowed the delay.
That's how I feel. HA is yet to decide though. Additional comments here would be welcome.
Pete, if you'd like to go it might be worth writing, as a much involved local person, and asking to. Since I've been invited – and am certainly not a "peer" – they'd hardly have the nerve to turn you down, not without confirming all my suspicions, anyway. If in the end I don't go you're welcome to ask them for my seat.
