Skip to main content

Independent Energy Scrutiny Panel

I have been that busy with matters (specifically relating to Gas) that I have not managed to talk about the launch of the IESP.

I held a meeting with various stakeholders inc Chemical Industries Association, National Farmers Union, Energy Institute, Ofgem, New Energy Foundation and Powerswitch to review the fossil fuel situation. This has been planned before it turned out there was gas calamity.

It was agreed that we should form the IESP to challenge the assumptions behind figures provided by various players (Government, Regulators, National Grid etc etc).

It is very clear that the figures provided as part of the Winter Outlook 2005 were substantially in error. Not only that but it was a shock. It was such as shock that it appears that Malcolm Wicks did not even know on Wednesday.

One of the things that arose during the meeting was that the DTI were refusing to provide information to Ofgem about gas field problems. In the circumstances it sounds totally insane. That is probably because it is totally insane. The logic is one of commercial confidentiality. I sent an email at 10am today to Malcolm Wicks about this. Later in the day Ofgem announced that they had an agreement with the DTI to get this information.

Not that it helps that much now, but it is good to talk

Well now that I chair the Independent Energy Scrutiny Panel I can expect Steve McCabe to call on me to resign as he did with the BSP.

There is another fun issue about how now Potato Peelings are hazardous waste and have to be disposed of separately from non-hazardous waste. One of the issues is that to produce gas from waste is easier when waste is mixed.

We will have to change a number of rather silly rules that should have been changed in any event. Now, however, it matters.

It has been horribly cold tonight. It would not surprise me if that resulted in some gas interruptions.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…