A rare parliamentary love-in took place in parliament today. Frontbench spokesmen for the Government, Conservatives and LibDems heaped praised on one MP who had changed the nation’s policy. My previous comment on Alan was titled 'Rebel without applause.' He had it in abundance today.
Steve Webb the LibDem spokesman talked of being persuaded by the Nottingham MP Alan Simpson. His speech three weeks ago at the Chartist Dinner in Newport was hypnotic and drew universal praise.
His triumph is in convincing Parliament that feed-in tariffs are the most efficient practical way of saving the planet. Uniquely he has converted his own house to generate more energy than it uses. His concentration on the single issue of the environment has won over parliament. His approach is to use conversationally persuasive arguments laced with charm and humour.
It’s aggravating that Alan has decided to stand down at the next election at a ridiculously early age. He is a rare parliamentary treasure who is genuinely irreplaceable.
Cock-up or cover-up?
Tomorrow, I have a whole half an hour of parliamentary time to describe an un-noticed disgrace.
My debate on the parliamentary accountability of nuclear finances is based on an outrage. A decision to dump a multi-£billion potential insurance payout on taxpayers was rushed through parliament almost in secret.
Only two chairs of Select Committees were asked to comment. Even though I had raised detailed questions about the £6.5 billion contract, the ministers neglected to tell me or other MPs about the decision.
Parliament was told 75 days after the deadline for us to object had passed. The Government argue that the risk is small and the taxpayers are unlikely to have to cough up for a nuclear accident. The risk is great enough for the American company who won the contract to say they would pull out of the deal if the taxpayers had not been saddled with the risk.
Providing free insurance is another nuclear subsidy that is unfair to renewable forms of energy generation. This episode is at best a disgraceful cock-up, at worst a subterfuge to deceive parliament from an ugly truth. Backbenchers have been treated contemptuously and the irrational rush to nuclear is reinforced.
Could it be that this poor deal was smuggled through parliament so that taxpayers would not notice that clearing up the mess of the last generation of nuclear will cost at least £93 billion?
Sellafield is the most dangerous nuclear site in Britain. Chernobyl released 90,000 terabequerals of Caesium 137. At Sellafield there are 8 million terabequerals of Caesium 137 to be neutralised. There are real risks of a terrible accident that could cost £billions to clear up and decades of destruction.
We should have been told.
Toned down blog?
There is a story about this blog on the BBC website.
It's entirely accurate but it all happened about 18 months ago. Regular readers may have noticed that the disclaimer on the home page pointing out that this blog is a private one - free of Commons censorship. Other MPs have had trouble because of alleged political content.
Taxpayers relax - this has long been a freebie.
What's "terrabequerals" (apart from being a Googlewhack)?
Google thinks you mean "terabecquerels". So do I:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becquerel
If you're going to pretend to scientific literacy it's best to get the literacy bit right.
Posted by: Kay Tie | November 19, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Better to stick to it as TBq's which I originally wrote.
Whats a googlewhack?
Posted by: Paul Flynn | November 19, 2008 at 10:23 AM
"Whats a googlewhack?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlewhack
"A Googlewhack is a Google search query consisting of any amount of words that returns a single result."
Anyway, the Caesium-137 is not the real problem because it doesn't accumulate in the body like other nasty isotopes (e.g. Strontium-90).
I'd rather the whole issue of power generation didn't have politicians deciding on technologies: Governments have been awful at choosing winners in the past. I bet no-one told you about Farnsworth-Hirsch fusors (yet I bet you have heard of the ITER fusion project):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
I bet no-one told you how Moore's Law applies to solar cells:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20081030_005501.html
Innovative new approaches are what is needed to fix the energy problem. The more Governments subsidise favoured approaches (biofuels to favour the farming lobby, wind subsidies to favour the green lobby, nuclear subsidies for strategic weapons) the more we stifle real solutions that might have emerged.
Posted by: Kay Tie | November 19, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Thanks Kay Tie. This is very educational. I recall in 1986, promises that the Caesium 137 that contaminated the sheep In Wales would soon leave their bodies. Orders are still in placed to control their movement. Even with a half-life of 30 years, the insurance risks are vast.
AGREE WITH YOUR ENTIRELY ABOUT NOVEL SOLUTIONS -ESPECIALLY AS I LIVE ALONGSIDE THE IMMENSE UNUSED POWER OF THE SEVERN ESTUARY.
MANY THANKS. I WILL CHASE YOUR LINKS.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | November 19, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Hi Paul, i have read whats been put up on the beeb and your message that followed. I am no fan of Labour but i will not go into that and i am a Plaid supporter but i just want to say how much i enjoy your blog, i may not agree with you all the time but i still enjoy what you write. What i enjoy most is your honesty and warmth towards the people and constituents you care about.
thanks very much and keep up the good work
Posted by: FM | November 19, 2008 at 01:38 PM
"It’s aggravating that Alan has decided to stand down at the next election at a ridiculously early age. He is a rare parliamentary treasure who is genuinely irreplaceable"
As I understand it, paul - and with all due respect to you - I think Alan is standing down because he is sick to death of the New Labour nonsense - ToryLite Tony (who I read today is hosting a conference in the new year on the global financial crisis - how does he fit it all in with his "peace envoy" work his religous foundation and moneygrubbing?) and Brown who is just as bad. I know you think Brown will change when Obama is in the White House, but a leopard doesn't change it's spots and I see B.O. is gung-ho for a surge in Afghanistan, but perhaps Alan and people like me can see we are just wasting our time. we have been taken for a ride too often in the past 11 years. Good luck to him whtever he decides to do.
Posted by: Graham Marlowe | November 19, 2008 at 04:28 PM
"Orders are still in placed to control their movement."
The Caesium-137 does flush out of the body quite quickly, but of course sheep keep putting it back in by eating contaminated grass. I guess the specific geography in the remaining areas has stopped the stuff being washed out.
You're right: the clean-up costs (or "don't eat the sheep costs" in this case) are very high. Even if there's a low risk of our own catastrophic leak, there's still an implied insurance cost. It would be interesting to ask Lloyds what these implicit free premiums might be.
"AGREE WITH YOUR ENTIRELY ABOUT NOVEL SOLUTIONS -ESPECIALLY AS I LIVE ALONGSIDE THE IMMENSE UNUSED POWER OF THE SEVERN ESTUARY."
That was used as an example in physics in school years ago. If I remember right, back then it would have generated an amazing 20% of the country's power needs. Of course, we use a tad more power these days!
Posted by: Kay Tie | November 19, 2008 at 07:19 PM
I think the reason we are Going Nuclear is because the Rothschilds, who run the PRIVATE Bank of England also owns 85% of the Worlds Uranium.
We will have to buy from him, and pay their companies for the clean up, better yet, they can sell us the Depleted Uranium for use in weapons, for some in the Military Industrial Complex, it is a win win win win win win win win situation.
http://www.infowars.com
Posted by: Adrian Peirson | November 19, 2008 at 08:39 PM
Adrian thanks.
Politicians turn off their critical faculties on nuclear power. The hundreds of nuclear powers stations will certainly jack up the price of uranium.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | November 19, 2008 at 08:47 PM
Thanks FM. That's very encouraging. Glad you read the blog It's been a strange day. I believe every MP heard the story today. The contact that the blog creates is invaluable and I've learned a lot from my correspondents. Best.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | November 19, 2008 at 08:51 PM
Ever see that film the Matrix, where humanity was being farmed but we didn't realise it, well relax, it was just a film.
http://www.adrianpeirson.spaces.live.com
Posted by: Adrian Peirson | November 19, 2008 at 08:57 PM
It's not that Graham. Alan has a young daughter and it's his plans for her future that has influenced him.
It will be similar to Tony Benn - leaving the Commons to spend more time in politics. He will still be campaigning.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | November 19, 2008 at 08:59 PM
Paul: If you read Alan's articles in the "Morning Star" you will see that he is not a fan of Brown (and why should he or any real Labour supporter be?). I really sense that he has had enough of the mess the "Labour" party has become - a blurred second-copy carbon of the Tories.
Posted by: Graham Marlowe | November 20, 2008 at 05:24 AM
That is true Graham. His view of Gordon Brown is not as optimistic as mine. But that is not the reason he is not standing. In spite of the problems with the Government, Alan has achieved great things by persuading the Government on renewables. Can be as effective outside of parliament?
Posted by: Paul Flynn | November 20, 2008 at 08:48 AM
I have seen the Matrix Adrian. Relieved to hear it's just a film.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | November 20, 2008 at 08:50 AM