The Convention on Modern Liberty - What Next?

• Jan 19, 2009
• by Guy Aitchison
• 1 Comment

Responses to “Convention blog carnival launches!”

1. Dr David Lowry says:

   21 January, 2009 at 5:42 pm

   There seems no obvious way to open a new thread, so I will post this important Parliamentary problem here. I do encourage anyone who shares my outrage over this corrupt and orchestrated decision to deliberately circumvent Parliamentary scrutiny to make contact.(drdavidlowry@hotmail.com)

   It looks like energy minister Mike O’Brien could be in hot water with the Speaker over this, although it is his predecessor as energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, on whose watch the problem developed.
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
   Point of Order
   House Of Commons, 21 January 2009
   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/02.htm#hddr_4
   12.32 pm

   Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise with you a matter of the gravest importance that arises from your duties to protect the rights of Back Benchers? This is an instance in which the right of Back Benchers to scrutinise Government decisions has been obstructed in a most serious and deliberate way.
   You were kind enough to allow me a debate in November on the decision to grant a novel indemnity to the American-led company that has taken over Sellafield, an indemnity that could cost taxpayers many billions of pounds in the future. At the time, I raised the concern that I, along with other Members who had shown an interest in the subject, would have no opportunity to debate it in the House because the minute came from the civil servants, from the Government, 75 days after the final day on which we could raise objections.
   In the Adjournment debate, the Minister said that that was simply a clerical error. Now, 140 pages have been released under freedom of information legislation, many of them heavily censored, but it is clear from them that this was a deliberate, calculated attempt to ensure that the House was not informed about the decision until after the recess when no objection could be raised.
   It was also suggested in the document and the debate that informing a single Chairman of a Select Committee is a substitute for informing the entire House, but the decision of one Select Committee Chairman, however distinguished, is no substitute for the historic right of Parliament to decide these matters. This a matter of the gravest importance, involving a contract of £22 billion, and possibly a £1 billion-plus subsidy for taxpayers in the future. Will you, Mr. Speaker, ensure that there is some way of reversing this decision, certainly calling the Minister to the House to explain how the rights of Back Benchers have been so flagrantly abused?

   Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. Members are responsible for the accuracy of their speeches; that is not a matter for the Chair. However, I always expect Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament, to provide accurate information to the House, as they are bound to do so under the resolution of the House in 1997 on ministerial accountability. The hon. Gentleman also raised the matter of how the contingent liability in relation to Sellafield was handled. I will ensure that he receives a response on that issue as soon as possible.

   BACKGROUND

   Officials plotted Sellafield cover-up
   MPs were denied the chance to challenge sweetener to private firm’s nuclear deal
   By Geoffrey Lean, Andy Rowell and Rich Cookson
   Independent on Sunday, 4 January 2009
   Top civil servants and nuclear administrators colluded to prevent MPs from challenging a massive sweetener to a private business taking over the running of Sellafield, internal documents in the hands of The Independent on Sunday reveal.
   The documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, also disclose that the Government pushed through the handover at breakneck speed because it feared that the “unstable management arrangements” of the controversial Cumbrian nuclear complex risked its safety.
   Yesterday, a leading Labour MP announced that he would try to get a parliamentary investigation into the revelations in the documents, which run to 140 pages and had been so heavily censored prior to release that many whole pages, and the names of most of the officials involved, have been systematically blanked out. Paul Flynn MP, a member of the House of Commons Public Administration Committee – which examines the performance of the Civil Service – is to ask it to inquire into what he calls “an egregious example of obstruction of parliamentary accountability”.
   The cover-up arises from the awarding, late in November, of a contract to run the nuclear complex to Nuclear Management Partners, a consortium of US, French and British companies. Although the contract is worth some £22bn, the consortium told ministers that it would walk away from the deal unless it was fully indemnified against the costs of cleaning up an accident at what is one of the world’s most hazardous nuclear sites.
   Normally, as the documents repeatedly acknowledge, the Government would place a special minute before Parliament if it intended to undertake a liability of more than £250,000. MPs would then have 14 days to raise an objection, which would stop the undertaking going ahead until it had been dealt with. But MPs were not told about the Sellafield indemnity until 75 days after the last moment when they could object, even though it potentially exposes the taxpayer to liabilities running into billions.
   The energy minister Mike O’Brien blames a “clerical oversight” for this. But the documents clearly show that the senior civil servants and nuclear administrators had been actively discussing how to limit MPs’ chance to object at least since early last year.
   The documents have come to light only as a result of persistent pressure from Dr David Lowry, an independent environmental policy and research consultant, who is a member of Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates. The documents make it clear that the Government was determined to hurry through the handover of operations at Sellafield as quickly as possible because of what one of them calls “the current unstable management arrangements overseeing these extremely sensitive sites, and their high hazard inventories”. Another adds that this instability “constitutes a genuine risk to health, safety and environmental performance” at the complex.
   A rushed timetable was drawn up which involved naming a preferred bidder for the contract on 11 July and signing a transitional agreement on 6 October. But this clashed with the long parliamentary summer recess, which ran from late July to the very day set aside for the signing.
   If the Government were to stick to its speeded-up timetable, the documents say, “the very earliest date” in which the minute could be laid before Parliament would be 14 July, shortly before the recess began on the 22nd.
   Determined not to slow down the handover, the Government decided to reduce the period in which MPs could object. On 26 March, an official whose name and department has been blanked out emailed the official Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) to stress the requirement to “shorten the 14 working parliamentary days that an indemnity would normally need before it can become effective”.
   The official added: “To get this down to five days, we will need to muster some persuasive arguments and I wondered where you had got to on assembling these.” Two days later he was sent a “first draft” of the argument including an assertion that the “vulnerability of Sellafield operations is already seen as a significant safety risk”.
   But by early June, the idea of giving MPs any time at all to object had been abandoned. Another email to the NDA, from apparently the same blanked-out official, reported a “conclusion” that a letter should merely be written to Edward Leigh MP, the chairman of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, “rather than go for a shorter notice period to the House”.
   A minute “explaining what has happened” would be laid before MPs only “when Parliament reconvenes in the autumn”, by which time it would be too late to raise objections. On 14 July, the then energy minister Malcolm Wicks duly wrote to Mr Leigh; he did not object and the indemnity went into force before MPs knew about it.
   In his letter, Mr Wicks assured Mr Leigh that he was placing a copy of the letter and the minute in “the libraries of the house”. In fact this did not happen until 15 October, 75 days after the final date on which MPs could raise an objection. Mr O’Brien, who succeeded Mr Wicks, blamed “a minor error by a junior official”, but later conceded that his department had not checked for three months whether the documents had reached the libraries.
   Mr Flynn says that he and other MPs had already been raising questions about the indemnity and would have been likely to raise objections, and accuse the Government of trying to push it through “without anyone noticing”.