Paul Flynn - Read My Day

Parliamnent's shame and 'GIVE WAR A CHANCE' Brigade

Some questions raised in the House today:

 

 

 

Prison Hope?

 

Rory Stewart is the welcome new broom at the Justice Department. He is NOT the average minister because he is burdened with high intelligence and an extraordinary hinterland. It's rare event for me to praises a new Tory Minister but this is exceptional. Will he face up to the truth of half a century of populist prison policies that, at great costs, have delivered no lasting reforms?  Recidivism has not been reduced by one iota since the 1960s.

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

When can we take advantage of the pragmatic and progressive views of the new prisons Minister, who has acknowledged that the crises of overcrowding and self-harm in our prisons are the result of 50 years of error by all parties? May we compare the crisis here with the situation in the Netherlands, where there is a shortage of prisoners and 19 prisons have had to be closed? Is that not the kind of problem we would like to have here?

• Andrea Leadsom (Leader of the House of Commons)

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is the kind of problem that we want to have. He is right to mention the commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry for Justice, to clean and safe prisons that are places of discipline and rehabilitation, not harm and violence. This Government gave greater powers last year to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons through the urgent notification system, by which specific issues in prisons can be raised immediately. We have also invested £100 million in recruiting 2,500 new prison officers, and we should be at full complement by the end of 2018. There is more to do, but progress has been made.

 

Cyber fearmongering

There was widespread world indifference to the Russian Cyber attack on Estonia ten years ago. We should have been worried then. The Tories denied the effects of Russian cyber manipulation in the Brexit and General Election 2017 votes in spite of evidence and their policy of dividing Europe. Now it's convenient to up the scaremongering in a budget grab for more money on 'defence'. It was ever thus in the cold war to try to frighten us with the Russian bear.

·         Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

Is not the wild and petulant infantilism of the statements by our world leaders a great threat to the security of the world, and does not history tell us that the greatest accelerant to war is an expectation of war, which we are fuelling at the moment? Would it not be far better for us to look to the great work we could do now in peacekeeping on the border in Bangladesh, rather than be thinking of war making?

·         Gavin Williamson (Secretary of State for Defence)

We are one of the most active nations in making sure we bring peace right across the globe. We have a great history and we should take great pride in everything we have achieved in the past, and I have no doubt we will achieve in the future. But we have to understand that people who are threatening Britain do not respect weakness; if we were to disarm, or get rid of our nuclear deterrent, or diminish or get rid of our conventional forces, that would make them no less likely to attack us. We have to have an effective deterrent, and that is not just a nuclear deterrent; it is a conventional deterrent as well.

Revolving door at heart of politicians' corruption.

There is still no recognition by the political class, civil servants and retired military of the potentially deeply corrupting character of a revolving door spinning freely. Parliament has disgraced itself again in the conduct of the past PM and Chancellor.

 

·         Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

The Government’s conduct in responding to the report reinforces the public’s view that we here are acting in our own private interests, not in the public interest. Is it not significant that a Prime Minister who did not lift a finger during his period in office in answer to pleas for reforms to jam the revolving door has now taken advantage of that period of office to take a job in China, with which he worked when in Government? Will the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee explain to us why George Osborne did not come to the Committee to explain why he had five meetings with BlackRock, why he altered the law in its favour and why, after losing office, he took a job with them on £650,000 a year for one day’s work a week? If that is not an egregious example of the abuse of the revolving door, it is hard to see what is. We have a shameful record, and perhaps the Chair will agree that the public will rightly regard us with contempt and as unfit to police our own affairs.

·         Mr Jenkin (Chair – Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee)

Sadly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As a member of my Committee, he has been instrumental in drawing the Committee’s attention to these issues. I would almost describe him as the conscience of the Committee on the issue, and long may he continue to encourage us in this work. As he knows, it is not the practice of the Committee to prosecute individual cases, and we should resist that because it would divert attention from the substance of the work that we need to undertake. I am actually quite pleased about how obviously carefully drafted the Government’s response is to our report because the points we are making in our report are having a telling effect. We have a long way to go, however, and that is why the hon. Gentleman has been one of those encouraging the Committee to continue pursuing the subject with a further inquiry. I thank him for his work for the Committee

 

Biscuit-gate crumbles. Current "House' Magazine

‘Biscuit-gate’ galvanised EFRA Select Committee members into consternation post-Christmas. Half the committee members received a £100 hamper loaded with biscuits and other goodies. The source was the head of a company whose conduct is being probed by the Committee.

Should the favoured recipients be flattered or insulted? Can their integrity be corrupted with hampers? We self-righteous members congratulated ourselves that we were denied our biscuits because we had done our duty and sharply probed the donor. We were judged incorruptible and hamper deprived. There was scramble from the hamper recipients to explain how they had not nibbled a single biscuit but passed them on to foodbanks or the homeless. Of course. The Select Committee is sending a stern rebuke to the donor. Biscuits will never buy us.

It was two fingers twice up from Government.

Two very late Government responses to Public Administration Select Committee (PACAC) reports arrived on the 21^st December. No-one noticed that the Government had rejected Chilcot and the call to jam the revolving door.  The press hacks, obsessed with anticipation of Christmas mince pies and wine, could not be provoked into noticing.

For three parliaments PACAC has hammered the corruption of former politicians, civil servants and military heads prostituting their insider knowledge to the highest bidder to provide rich pickings in retirement jobs.

Taking a new job with the Chinese interests by David Cameron exposes parliamentarians to accusations of promoting our own financial interests in office in order to benefit later. PM David Cameron resisted all pleas to reform the abuses of revolving door. Chaucer foretold, ‘If gold rusts, what will iron do?

Rose Gentle, the mother of Gordon Gentle, the first soldier killed in the 2003 Iraq War, is angry. The Government rejected the modest PACAC proposals to avoid a further war in which Parliament could be again misled. The war decisions was not just one man’s.  Most MPs of the major parties and three major Select Committees were gung-ho to join Bush’s War.  Parliament will fail if we allow Chilcot conclusions to be suffocated with a blanket of self-serving spin.

No wonder there is a crisis in recruiting if parliament does not reform procedures that lead us into avoidable war. The loved ones of the 179 brave soldiers who were killed in Iraq deserved a hearing. They suffer wounds of grief that will never heal.

It sounds odd but I am both for and against drug use. As chair of the APPG group on opioid use, I want UK patients to avoid the plague of opioid over-use, addictions and deaths that have cut life expectancy in the USA, with deaths currently standing at 42,000 a year – and predicted to rise to 72,000 by 2025. The increase has been for non-life threatening problems of pain and depression. We are following the trend.

But we should follow the example of the 29 US states who have re-legalised medicinal cannabis. Each of these states has benefited from a drop in drug crime- up to 41%. Also as a direct consequence the states where medicinal cannabis is available have avoided the increase in opioid deaths.

It’s a no-brainer that we should follow these examples. Public opinion is prepared for reforms. Our chance will come on February 23^rd when seriously ill people will ask parliament to allow them to legally use their medicine of choice.

Newport County soccer team have rocketed from screaming nightmare to paradise. A year ago they were firmly bottom the league nine points adrift. A new manager arrived and the club escaped relegation with a goal in the last minute of the last game of the season. Last week we beat Leeds in the FA cup.

There is collateral benefit to one of the local MPs. The new manager is gloriously named Michael Flynn. The Flynn tribe always deliver for Newport.

Bad law genesis. Grove's political bid on sentience.

•  
  Environment Food and Rural Affairs
  Committee
  Oral evidence: Draft Animal Welfare (Sentencing
  and Recognition of Sentience) Bill 2017, HC 709
  Wednesday 17 January 2018 Sir Stephen Laws KCB,
  QC, former First Parliamentary Counsel
•  
  The EFRA Select Committee is taking evidence on Michael Gove's panic bill to hug 'sentience' as a concept. it follow a Nasty Party Tory vote on the Euro Bill. This will be a classic example of how not to legislate. 

 

• Paul Flynn: I feel a sense of excitement about this Bill, because having been through the genesis of the Dangerous Dogs Act a long time ago, I think this will be a classic piece of bad legislation, in that it is prejudice‑rich, politically charged and evidence‑free. There does not seem to be any evidence that the areas to be addressed are the most severe forms or the most widespread forms of animal abuse.  Neither does there seem to be any evidence that increasing sentences and fines necessarily alters behaviour.  Those cases have to be made if this Bill is gone through.

We touched on the reason behind this.  This Bill is not about improving the welfare of animals.  It is a political stunt, because “sentience” is a highly charged word at the moment for the reasons Alan gave earlier.  It is an attempt to paint one political party in a pleasant light rather than a nasty light, and in doing this it is an abuse of Parliament’s time.  The effort and time that will go into this will not be worthwhile unless we can open it up and ask people to come in and say, “What are the areas of animal abuse that need to be addressed?”  One would suggest getting rid of hunting altogether, and the mass rearing of animals to be shot by guns.  These are the main areas, though maybe people will have others.  The genesis of this Bill seems to be entirely party‑political.  What are you views on that?

Chair: I do not know how much you want to get into party politics, but I will pass it over to you, Sir Stephen.

Sir Stephen Laws: It is clear that it is an attempt to reproduce an obligation that exists via European law in our law at the moment.  To that extent it is about the law, but is it an efficient use of the law?  You cannot actually change people’s minds by making a law that says they have to change their minds.  You can change people’s behaviour, and perhaps if you change their behaviour you can change their minds as a result.

This is not something that is directed at the most efficient use of the law.  The most efficient use of the law is to change people’s behaviour, which you do with specific provisions.  If you create general provisions that then potentially fight with specific provisions, what you do to the law is make it unclear and make the specific provisions less valuable than they would be if they stood on their own.

Questions to the Government 18/01/2018

Contributions made to the House yesterday (18th of January) on the Rohingya crisis and the re-legalisation of medicinal cannabis. 

 

Select Committee Statement on International Development

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

All of us who visited the Kutupalong site had an experience that was overwhelming and heartbreaking. We heard at first hand the terror of the refugees at the possibility of repatriation, and the only possible practical way to achieve that is with support from the United Nations or the British Army. We have a wonderful record of peacekeeping in these impossible circumstances. Is that not the best way, although a very difficult way, to go forward and to ensure there can be a long-term solution?

• Stephen Twigg

I thank my hon. Friend. In a sense, that question takes us back to the question from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) at the beginning. I absolutely agree. One of the dangers with these crises is that they hit the headlines for a time, and then the attention of the media and the political world moves on. It is vital that we do not allow that to happen. This is about addressing the crisis now but also being there to support long-term solutions, and a potential role for UK peacekeepers is part of that.

 

Business Questions

 

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

In the Welsh Assembly yesterday, Mark Isherwood, a Conservative Member, won by 31 to two a vote on a motion asking this House to re-legalise medicinal cannabis. Will the Government follow suit and give a fair wind to my private Member’s Bill, which would liberate seriously ill people from the threat of prosecution for using their medicine of choice?

• Andrea Leadsom

 

The hon. Gentleman has championed this issue in the House. As he knows, the Government keep the matter under review, but it is not our policy to legalise the use of cannabis.

No remorse or apology for Parliament's greatest mistake.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee 10 months ago published a report outlining lessons the Government could learn from the Chilcot Inquiry.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubadm/708/708.pdf

The Government published a wholly inadequate response to the report a few days before Christmas.. Regrettably the response contains no remorse and Ministers disagree with most recommendations. 

Today I raised the issue with a Minister standing in at Business Questions for Leader of the House Andrea Leadson..

·       Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

Yesterday, Rose Gentle, the mother of Gordon Gentle, one of the first soldiers to die in the Iraq war, expressed her regret at the Government statement that seems to absolve Parliament from the conclusions of the Chilcot report. We need, as she called for, an act of apology from this House and this Parliament. It was not one man; it was the Opposition and three Select Committees, who were cheerleaders for that worst mistake we have made this century. Would not a suitable act of apology be followed by the reading of the names of the 179 soldiers whom we sent to their deaths

·       Paul Maynard

The hon. Gentleman has been a consistent campaigner on this issue over many years and has earned the House’s respect for his consistency. I will ensure that I pass his comments on to the Leader of the House, who I am sure will do her best to get him a suitable response to his point

Lessons Learned from the Chilcot Report

Last year the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee held an investigation on lessons learned from the Chilcot Inquiry. Following an evaluation of the evidence the Committee published recommendations for Government. 

Government responded to the advice this week, extracts from the paper are below. In bold type are Committee's suggested reforms.

Parliament should in future have a full debate and vote on an amendable motion, setting out the precise terms of reference, an estimated timeframe and a proposed budget for the Inquiry.

Government does not accept this recommendation.

Public inquiries take many forms…will often need to be established quickly to respond to issues of urgent public concern. Government believes that the current approach to establishing inquiries provides the appropriate balance of responsiveness and flexibility.

It is no longer acceptable that the present arrangements should continue without stronger means to prevent key ministers, or even the whole Cabinet from being sidelined. Beyond making representations to Ministers and to the PM, the Cabinet Secretary does not have any formal recourse to object to a PM.

The Government does not agree with the Committee’s finding that there is an absence of safeguards on decision-making within Government.

When decisions on military intervention have been taken, the NSC and its sub-committees and officials groups have prepared decisions fully and there has been a full discussion of the issue in Cabinet before decisions were taken.

We agree with the Iraq Inquiry that the Intelligence and Security Committee should play a key role in strengthening the checks and assessments on intelligence information when it is used to make the case for Government policies.

The Intelligence and Security Committee already has substantial powers to access and scrutinise sensitive information.

We acknowledge the seriousness of Dr Rangwala’s conclusions (that Blair deliberately misled the House) and recognise that his report supports the view held by many members of the House. We note Chilcot believes there was no decision by the then Prime Minister to deceive.

This Committee is not in a position to take up and investigate further Dr Rangwala’s conclusions. Should further evidence come to light the House may wish to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee.

The Government notes the Committee’s conclusion.

Government and Parliament should take the necessary steps to ensure that future Inquiries do not experience such unacceptable delays.

It will be rare that an Inquiry will have the scope and scale of the Iraq Inquiry. The time it took to report was in large part due to the complexity and scope of the issues it was examining.

We reiterate the recommendations of PASC, across its three reports on strategic thinking in government, that the NSC requires far greater capability in strategic thinking and analysis and would greatly benefit from having its own capacity to synthesise assessment and analysis.

The Government does not accept the Committee’s finding.

Lessons Learned from the Chilcot Report

 

Last year the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee held an investigation on lessons learned from the Chilcot Inquiry. Following an evaluation of the evidence the Committee published recommendations for Government. 

Government responded to the advice this week, extracts from the paper are below.

 

 

Parliament should in future have a full debate and vote on an amendable motion, setting out the precise terms of reference, an estimated timeframe and a proposed budget for the Inquiry.

 

Government does not accept this recommendation.

Public inquiries take many forms…will often need to be established quickly to respond to issues of urgent public concern. Government believes that the current approach to establishing inquiries provides the appropriate balance of responsiveness and flexibility.

 

 

It is no longer acceptable that the present arrangements should continue without stronger means to prevent key ministers, or even the whole Cabinet from being sidelined. Beyond making representations to Ministers and to the PM, the Cabinet Secretary does not have any formal recourse to object to a PM.

 

The Government does not agree with the Committee’s finding that there is an absence of safeguards on decision-making within Government.

When decisions on military intervention have been taken, the NSC and its sub-committees and officials groups have prepared decisions fully and there has been a full discussion of the issue in Cabinet before decisions were taken.

 

 

We agree with the Iraq Inquiry that the Intelligence and Security Committee should play a key role in strengthening the checks and assessments on intelligence information when it is used to make the case for Government policies.

 

The Intelligence and Security Committee already has substantial powers to access and scrutinise sensitive information.

 

 

We acknowledge the seriousness of Dr Rangwala’s conclusions (that Blair deliberately misled the House) and recognise that his report supports the view held by many members of the House. We note Chilcot believes there was no decision by the then Prime Minister to deceive.

This Committee is not in a position to take up and investigate further Dr Rangwala’s conclusions. Should further evidence come to light the House may wish to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee.

 

The Government notes the Committee’s conclusion.

 

 

Government and Parliament should take the necessary steps to ensure that future Inquiries do not experience such unacceptable delays.

 

It will be rare that an Inquiry will have the scope and scale of the Iraq Inquiry. The time it took to report was in large part due to the complexity and scope of the issues it was examining.

 

 

We reiterate the recommendations of PASC, across its three reports on strategic thinking in government, that the NSC requires far greater capability in strategic thinking and analysis and would greatly benefit from having its own capacity to synthesise assessment and analysis.

 

The Government does not accept the Committee’s finding.

 

 

Return of the Tory Snake-oil Salesmen!

Tories will repeat their snake-oil salesman Severn Bridges tolls stunt of January 13th 2017.

 

 

 

David T C Davies Monmouth MP, SOS Alun Cairns, Transport SOS Chris Grayling January 13th 2016.

 

Confused on tolls? ............Understandable.

It's sorry saga of confidence tricks and an election bribe. As a bribe it failed to win any extra seats for the Tories but it has forced them into honouring the Severn Bridges Toll Act 1992 that says the tolls should be zero this month. The £5.60 charge is an imposed ALUN CAIRNS TAX, that is unnecessary. From January 2018 the Bridges will be in public ownership and should be treated in the same way as the rest of the national road system that is toll-free. 

 

Tolls will be £3.70 they said (Dec 2016), then £3.00 (above 13th Jan 2017), then Election Bribe £0.00 (May 2017, Now £5.60! For another year.

An extract from a recent evidence session of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee December 2017: 

Paul Flynn: Do you think the political cartwheels that you performed on the Severn bridges toll are likely to bring cheap political opportunism into disrepute. Could you explain why you changed your policy from a £3.70 toll in the middle of the election campaign?

Alun Cairns: I always recognised that there was a symbolic and economic issue surrounding tolls.

Q63 Paul Flynn: Could you answer that? I have got a few questions but why did you do it at that particular time?

Alun Cairns: We have to work across Government.

Q64 Paul Flynn: It was sheer coincidence that it was at election time, was it?

Alun Cairns: It became a manifesto commitment.

Q65 Paul Flynn: Why? It was a cheap attempt to gain seats, which failed spectacularly, because you actually lost three seats. As a party, just think on terms of political morality, your Government is there on the basis of mercenary MPs from Northern Ireland who have been bribed with £1 billion. The situation with the Severn bridges toll—

Chair: I am not sure that I can allow references to mercenary MPs and bribery to pass unchecked, Mr Flynn.

Paul Flynn: I think they are entirely accurate statements. A mercenary is someone who can be bought and does a job for money. I believe that the Northern Ireland Members would generally acknowledge that they wouldn’t have taken up their new-found loyalty to the Tory Government without the £1 billion that was paid to them. I think that is an accepted fact.

Chair: I enjoy robust questioning, but we should all be careful, because I might get advised that those terms are out of order. Do continue, because I am enjoying this.

Q66 Paul Flynn: I have opposed the Severn bridges tolls since before you were born, Secretary of State. It is welcome that they are ending. The Severn Bridges Act 1992 set out an agreement—a deal—which comes to an end on 8 January, when the Severn bridges tolls end. The Severn bridges are exactly the same as any other part of the motorway system: they are owned by the public. Isn’t continuing paying the tolls for another year accurately called a Cairns tax?

Alun Cairns: I am grateful for the recognition that the tolls are being cut. When I was a member of this Committee, the impact of the Severn tolls was the first issue we considered. Ever since then, I have been convinced that something needs to be done about it. Going back to the question of why it was to be halved, and then why we came forward with a commitment

Paul Flynn: Why don’t you confess—it would feel a lot better—that this was a crude attempt to buy votes during an election? It is the sort of thing that voters rightly spurn. They recognised it to be a cheap election bribe.

Alun Cairns: Well, no. It was something I made a priority when I became Secretary of State. At the time I was here last year, I had not quite convinced all my colleagues—

Paul Flynn: You changed your mind in six months.

Alun Cairns: I had not quite convinced all my colleagues that abolishing them was the best way, and I managed to get halfway by halving the tolls. I am pleased that my colleagues responded to my request. I am supported by the Committee and by business in Wales. The outcome is positive. When we talk about the Welsh economy, I hope we can talk about the south Wales economy and the south-west of England in an optimistic way. There is one haulier very close to your constituency, Mr Flynn, that has said that it has saved it £500,000.

Paul Flynn: We know about the advantages. Can I go on to something else?

Alun Cairns: I can give countless examples of businesses that welcome it. We need to focus on it to help attract further investment into Wales.

Q68 Paul Flynn: We all agree on the advantages. What we are discussing is the political morality of your party in the election campaign, the reasons why you did this and whether it brings politics into disrepute. You told us last year that the tolls were going to be £3.70. You appeared on the Severn bridge—I have a charming photograph on my website of the Chairman and you—announcing, “Hallelujah! It is going to be a £3 toll.” Strangely enough, a surprise election comes along, and suddenly they are going to go altogether. Is that what you are trying to tell us happened?

Alun Cairns: My Flynn, I think you are asking me to apologise for abolishing the tolls.

Q69 Paul Flynn: No, I am asking you to apologise for a crudely political way of conning the voters. It didn’t work. To take the next con that is on now, the majority of the people of this country are very alarmed about many of the aspects of Brexit, now that it is coming in. I sit on other Committees, and they take a line, which is that they have great concern about the effect on the Welsh farming industry.

Alun Cairns: If I may, there is a serious issue here. If you are asking me to apologise for a manifesto commitment that we made and are delivering on, I absolutely will not do so. This is a positive announcement. We should all be taking it in the spirit it was meant and using it as an economic measure to boost investment.

Paul Flynn: There is such a thing as doing the right thing for the wrong reason. My question was not about the advantages of the Severn bridge tolls—they should have gone in ’66, as far as I am concerned—but about the way you did it, what it does to political faith and the way that your party is in power because of the deal they did with the DUP.

 

"Worst civil investment ever' as MPs failed to notice.

Today at 13:36

 

Hinkley C 2018: plus ca change, plus la meme chose.....

 

Parliament, with a very small number of honourable exceptions, has utterly failed to  properly scrutinize- and  halt - this ongoing  secret scandal. Many MPs should look in their mirrors on the first day of the new year, and ask themselves why they  have so abjectly failed in their  role  as scrutineers of policy as well as lawmakers ( what are their  research staff doing ?), with the consequence of a massive  tens of billions of  pounds penalty on current taxpayers and future electricity bill payers.

David

 

Advisers on Hinkley Point C nuclear power station had ‘cosy’ ties to both sides

Apparent conflict of interest on Somerset project

Alex Ralph

January 1 2018,  The Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/advisers-on-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-station-had-cosy-ties-to-both-sides-xftxcl9sz

The project has been called the “worst civil investment decision made by any government” by Paul Flynn, a Labour MP who has campaigned against itEDF Energy/PA

 

Consultancy firms working for the government on the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station were advising the project’s Chinese investor and its French builder at the same time, an investigation by The Times has revealed.

KPMG, the professional services group, was paid £4.4 million between 2012 and 2017 as a financial adviser to the energy and business departments, despite telling officials that it was also acting for China General Nuclear Power Corp on the project.

The apparent conflict of interest has been revealed after the Information Commissioner’s Office intervened to press for disclosure from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Previously, officials had redacted the information, claiming that it was commercially sensitive.

In a second potential conflict, Lazard, the financial advisory firm, was paid £2.6 million between 2012 and 2015 to advise the business department on Hinkley Point. Details of its previously redacted tender documents reveal that it was an adviser to EDF, the French developer that is investing in Hinkley Point alongside the Chinese. A source said that Lazard’s advice to EDF was not related to the Somerset project.

MPs expressed concern about the perceived conflicts. The government has struck a 35-year deal under which the energy companies could receive £50 billion above market prices.

 

Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Commons public accounts committee, said that Hinkley Point was crucial public infrastructure and therefore it was “vital that auditors get full sight” of the potential conflicts. It “looks cosy”, she said, adding that it was “not really appropriate” for firms to be advising both sides.

The details have been released more than a year and half after The Times complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which informally advised the business department to reconsider its position. The department previously had handed over heavily redacted documents in response to a Freedom of Information request.

The Information Commissioner’s Office said that there was a “significant and important public interest”, something that had been strengthened by a report from the National Audit Office in June, which found that the government’s deal had “locked consumers into a risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefits”. The project has been riddled with delays and controversy over its spiralling costs.

The National Audit Office also criticised the business department for insufficiently managing the potential conflict of Leigh Fisher, another government adviser. The Times reported in November 2016 that Leigh Fisher, the management consultant, had been awarded contracts worth a combined £1.2 million despite telling officials that the British division of Jacobs Engineering Group, an American firm that owns Leigh Fisher, was working for EDF on Hinkley Point.

In tendering for a 2015 contract, KPMG told officials that “as DECC [the Department of Energy & Climate Change] is fully aware, a KPMG team is currently acting for [China General Nuclear Power Corp] in relation to their potential investment into [Hinkley Point C]. This work is being carried out by a team, separate to the KPMG team acting for DECC, operating under strict internal conditions.” The auditing firm added that it had “mature policies and procedures . . . to identify and manage potential conflicts of interest”, including “properly segregated resources . . . to handle the projects”.

In Lazard’s 82-page tender document in 2013, which initially was almost entirely redacted, it told officials “that it has no conflict of interest in respect of the work contemplated by the ITT [intention to tender] regarding the development at Hinkley Point C. The Lazard group does have a relationship with Electricité de France [EDF] led out of its Paris office and is assisting it with a current advisory mandate that has no bearing on, and creates no conflict with, the advisory work contemplated by the ITT but this will not prejudice in any manner the qualifications of a Lazard team led out of its London office to provide the high-quality, independent advice contemplated by the ITT.”

Paul Flynn, a Labour MP who has campaigned against Hinkley Point C, said that the project was the “worst civil investment decision made by any government” and that the potential conflicts were “further proof that the contract was agreed for political imperatives . . . To avoid future calamities, a full national inquiry must be held.”

Leigh Fisher said that it “managed the work and resources in accordance with agreed protocols throughout”.

The National Audit Office was not aware of the KPMG and Lazard situations. On Leigh Fisher, it said: “Placing the onus on Leigh Fisher to manage the potential conflict is not in line with good practice”; “by the time Leigh Fisher did confirm it was complying with arrangements stipulated by the department, it had already completed the majority of its work”; “the department did not receive any monthly updates on the arrangements in place, as it had requested”; and that “even when the department did stipulate ethical wall arrangements, they were below the standard we would expect”.

The business department said: “In line with our requirements, both Lazard and KPMG outlined their policy on dealing with any potential conflicts of interest in their tender documents, together with the actions they would take to mitigate these. As a result, we are satisfied that the perceived conflicts had no impact on the work carried out under the contract(s).”

 

HINKLEY POINT C

• Session: 2017-19
• Date tabled: 23.11.2017
• Primary sponsor: Flynn, Paul
• Sponsors:
  • Day, Martyn
  • Stephens, Christopher
  • Linden, David
  • Cunningham, Jim
  • Godsiff, Roger

That this House is shocked by the Public Accounts Committee's conclusion that no one was protecting the interests of energy consumers in the deal to construct Hinkley Point C which the Committee conclude will impose large extra costs on the average annual household electricity bill and disproportionately hit the poorest; condemns the failure to consider better value renewable sources of energy; agrees that the Government locked consumers into an expensive deal despite the case for Hinkley Point C weakening during its negotiations; is appalled that consumers will now pay £30 billion in top-up payments, five times more than the £6 billion promised in 2013; and believes that any future plans for new nuclear power must be assessed by the financial calamity of HinkleyShow:

 

Showing 17 out of 17

Name	Party	Constituency	Date Signed
Bardell, Hannah	Scottish National Party	Livingston	11.12.2017
Blackman, Kirsty	Scottish National Party	Aberdeen North	04.12.2017
Brown, Alan	Scottish National Party	Kilmarnock and Loudoun	04.12.2017
Cunningham, Jim	Labour Party	Coventry South	28.11.2017
Day, Martyn	Scottish National Party	Linlithgow and East Falkirk	27.11.2017
Docherty, Martin	Scottish National Party	West Dunbartonshire	29.11.2017
Flynn, Paul	Labour Party	Newport West	23.11.2017
Godsiff, Roger	Labour Party	Birmingham Hall Green	28.11.2017
Law, Chris	Scottish National Party	Dundee West	29.11.2017
Linden, David	Scottish National Party	Glasgow East	28.11.2017
Lucas, Caroline	Green Party	Brighton Pavilion	28.11.2017
MacNeil, Angus	Scottish National Party	Na h-Eileanan an Iar	04.12.2017
McNally, John	Scottish National Party	Falkirk	28.11.2017
Monaghan, Carol	Scottish National Party	Glasgow North West	29.11.2017
Rimmer, Marie	Labour Party	St Helens South and Whiston	28.11.2017
Skinner, Dennis	Labour Party	Bolsover	29.11.2017
Stephens, Christopher	Scottish National Party	Glasgow South West	27.11.2017