Stupid and Greedy?

Total number of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan = 214

On many occasions  I have  criticised former Minister John Hutton. I have never seen the point of him. Personality free, he is a blank page who always bears the imprint of the last lobbyist who sat on him. The answers he has given to all the  questions I have asked him  prove that he is stupid. Now there are allegations that he is greedy. Of course. That's in fashion now.

Regular readers of this blog might remember  this one from July 2008.

"I asked Secretary of State John Hutton why he has been bewitched by the Pied Piper of nuclear which after massive UK subsidies has never delivered on time or on budget and has left us with a £73 bn clean-up bill. ‘New’ nuclear in Finland is two years late and a £1billion over budget. Why not invest in the practical popular attainable renewables of wave, tidal, solar and wind?

His answer proved he is deeply under the nuclear spell. "

Today it is reported that  Mr Hutton will be appointed to nuclear power company EDF’s Stakeholder Advisory Panel, which advises the firm’s senior management, and includes Lord Patten, the former Tory Cabinet Minister and last Governor of Hong Kong.  It's called the 'revolving door. The Public Administration Committee (PASC)  gave Richard Caborn and Lord Warner a roasting (see Quentin Letts' hilarious account of the grilling)about  taking vast sums in exchange for their ministerial contacts and 'expertise.' We pointed out in our report that Ministers settling contracts might have an eye on the possibility of a fat salary when they step down as ministers. We thought that there is a grave danger that contracts could be awarded for the wrong reasons. We made a major point of this peril in our report. My conviction is that ministers should be banned for life from working in companies that have received contracts from them in their ministerial incarnations. The contract that John Hutton bestowed of EDF was for £13 billion.

 

On previous blogs, I have criticised John Hutton as a shallow politician who has never been accused of having an original thought. He has trained himself to be a Blair clone. He dressed like Blair and abided by the ten commandments of Blairism. He even started to imitate the way that  Tony Blair speaks, starting every other sentence with 'Look!....'.  In all his many jobs he has parroted the usually bad ideas that lobbyists have crammed into his head. He fell head over heels in love with nuclear power and said,  “Nuclear is UK's new North Sea oil”. He promulgated unattainable ‘choice’ in schools and hospital with religious fervour.

Now he has given us a hint on why he resigned as Secretary of State for Defence. He wanted to send 2000 mores troops to Afghanistan even though they would be fresh targets for IEDs.  It’s a policy that's populist but deadly. Again he caved in to pressure this time from the military. The truth may be beginning to emerge.

We may wait to hear how much money John Hutton will get from his nuclear French masters. It might all be voluntary work of course. Somehow, I think not. I can't wait to get back to parliament to get stuck into this outrage of an appointment. I wonder if John Hutton can be persuaded to come back to justify himself before the Select Committee. I shall start sharpening up the adjectives now ready for our discussion.

I quoted PASC in my evidence to the Kelly Committee

"PASC concluded that,  “In the current climate of public mistrust, voluntary self-regulation of lobbying activity risks being little better than the Emperor's new clothes.”  The Committee found the rules on lobbying loosely and variously interpreted such that former Ministers in particular appeared to be able to use  the contacts they built up as in office  to further a private interest. In other words, the present arrangements allow the influence of MPs (and peers)  to be bought, which is  potentially corrupting – or worse. This is unacceptable, particularly where the former ministers continue to be paid as sitting Members of Parliament."  

Hutton in action

 Here is a Hansard example of John Hutton  in scintillating form:

Cross-examining the new Secretary of State for Works and Pensions the day before he was appointed two years ago  produced some novel answers: 

Paul Flynn: You said you asked the public whether they wanted choice. Can you remember how many of them, what percentage, said they wanted no choice?

Mr Hutton: I think a tiny number.

Paul Flynn: The point being that it is a fairly stupid question, is it not? Asking the public whether they want choice is like asking whether they favour mother love and thornless roses.

Mr Hutton: Yes, I think it confirms that choice is a popular idea.

Q532 Paul Flynn: Having asked them whether they want choice, do you not think there is a danger that it would keep the problem with targets (which you seem to have said were more a measure of failure than success in many cases) by offering them choice which is not deliverable in many instances.

Mr Hutton: We should offer choice where we know we can deliver it.

Q533 Paul Flynn: We offer choice in schools. Like many constituencies, I have half a dozen comprehensive schools. Some have a better reputation than others. Ninety per cent of the parents would go for one or two schools and a tiny percentage would go for the unpopular schools. How do you deliver on that?

Mr Hutton: I think we should not make the mistake of assuming that choice is not going to have some limits. Of course there are going to be limits on choice. We have always made that clear.

In my evidence to the Kelly Committee I quoted our PASC report. 

"PASC concluded that,  “In the current climate of public mistrust, voluntary self- 

regulation of lobbying activity risks being little better than the Emperor's new 

clothes.”  The Committee found the rules on lobbying loosely and variously 

interpreted such that former Ministers in particular appeared to be able to use  the 

contacts they built up as in office  to further a private interest. In other words, the 

present arrangements allow the influence of MPs (and peers)  to be bought, which is  

potentially corrupting – or worse. This is unacceptable, particularly where the former 

ministers continue to be paid as sitting Members of Parliament.  "

Legalisation

A splendid article in the Observer today by John Gray makes the case for legalising all drugs.

The Observer is taking a progressive stance on publicising the determination of South American countries to go their own way. The poor countries are suffering low level warfare because of drugs prohibition and the refusal of the rich world to recommend an obvious remedy.

Gray recalls that William Gladstone habitually took laudanum to perk him up before he spoke in the Commons. it was a mixture of opium and alcohol. Argentina, Mexico and Brazil may well break the UN -led foolishness on prohibition.

Comments

[Nursing pajamas]

What?...Hutton has succeeded in cloning himself?..really?..I don't know...i don't have any idea about it.

[steampunk]

You know that Hutton has succeeded in cloning himself, don't you?

[anon e mouse]

"Mr Hutton will be appointed to nuclear power company EDF’s Stakeholder Advisory Panel"

Is that the same EDF that G Brown's brother works for - as Head of Media relations?

[CLong]

The government seem to spend the vast majority of time wasting our taxes and beating down the population with the prohibition hammer. Whilst breaking communities and trust apart by advising the police to tell neighbours to spy on each other. Better known as grassing, and lets be honest, no-one likes a grass.

The guardian, yet again, comes up trumphs, thats around the 10th article in just under 2 weeks they have published alone the same lines. Yet every other paper ignores it.

As for our energy needs why not harvest the power of hemp and use that as a renewable clean resource for automobiles. Not to mention the other 50,000+ uses.

Just a quick mention Paul, hope you had chance to read "The future of cannabis use in Wales" which you hopefully recieved from Norris Nuvo, part written by myself. Its a good insite in to how things could be. Let me know if you didn't receive a copy, if not i will send one your way.

Thanks
Chris.

[John]

It's time for a U-turn on drugs

UK drug policy is a spectacular failure. Decriminalisation is the only way forward appeared in todays Guardian on similair lines to the one in the Oberver

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/14/legalise-drugs

[Dave B]

If I were a cynic I might believe that when Ministers make decisions these are based on their future career development plans rather than the good of the British people

[Paul Flynn]

It is the same contract that will cost eventually £93 bn or more when all the bills are paid. Here is a recent news report. I raise this many times in the past:

Taxpayers could be forced to provide commercial insurance cover to the nuclear industry to safeguard plans being considered by ministers to build a fleet of new reactors in Britain.
Private insurers are refusing to offer energy companies full coverage against the risk of a Chernobyl-style nuclear accident, forcing the Government to consider stepping in itself to act as an “insurer of last resort”.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change confirmed that PricewaterhouseCoopers, the audit firm, had been appointed to draw up recommendations setting out how the Government could do this.
Simon Hobday, a lawyer for Pinsent Masons specialising in the nuclear industry, said that the situation had arisen because of rules contained in an international agreement signed by the UK in 2004. These will force operators of nuclear power plants to broaden the type of insurance cover they have in place against the threat of a nuclear leak.
The new rules, which were originally due to take effect in 2006 but have been repeatedly delayed, have far-reaching implications for the industry and have led to fresh uncertainty over the cost of building and operating new reactors, Mr Hobday said.
The operators of Britain’s eight existing nuclear power stations are obliged by law to have insurance cover against the risk of a nuclear accident worth up to £140 million per site.
This must cover any claim for loss of life, personal injury and damage to or loss of property for up to ten years from the date an incident takes place.But under the new rules, the requirements will become far stricter — and more costly. Energy companies will have to increase the amount of cover they have in place, to €700 million (£620 million) per site, while the time frame for claims will be extended from ten to 30 years.
New types of cover will also be required, including protection against “economic losses” resulting from an accident, damage to the environment, and loss of use and enjoyment of the environment, as well as the cost of preventing contamination of new areas.
However, the insurance industry is balking at the new rules, which it says are poorly defined and run for too long a time frame.
Mark Tetley, managing director of Nuclear Risk Insurers, said that commercial insurers were reluctant to offer all of the new cover and that the industry was concerned that a vague definition of terms such as “nuclear damage” and “environmental impairment” left it exposed to the threat of costly future litigation.
The situation has forced the Government to consider providing billions of pounds worth of commercial insurance cover itself. In recent months, Whitehall officials have been in talks with the insurance industry and a full public consultation will be held next year, a spokeswoman said.
If approved, the plan would mean taxpayers would underwrite some of the insurance cover for Britain’s operational nuclear stations as well as any new reactors that are built. One industry source said the total cover could be worth several billion pounds.
Mr Hobday, of Pinsent Masons, said: “Anything like this that increases uncertainty makes it more difficult for nuclear developers to understand the cost of new plants.”
Simon Carroll, one of six members of the Nuclear Liabilities Financing Assurance Board, an organisation that provides independent advice to the Government on nuclear safety issues, said: “The insurance companies are not happy with all of the types of damage that are being discussed or the timescales

[HuwOS]

I guess it wasn't, as far as I can identify that was a £22bn contract with an American led company to clean up Sellafield with of course us taking on the risk of any accidents they might have. Sorry about that confusion.

[HuwOS]

Paul was this £13bn contract the one the government bypassed parliament on entering into?