Last week I
commented on the meeting between Peter Hain and David Cameron at which Hain was
attempting to enlist the Prime Minister’s support for the building the Severn
barrage. I still have my doubts about
the whole proposal, and there was a column in the Sunday Times this weekend
written by Charles Clover (hidden behind their paywall I’m afraid) which he
also expressed a number of reservations about the proposal.
I’ve also expressed
my concern about the way in which an MP elected to serve the people of his
constituency seems to have decided that he will, in fact, spend a large part of
his time and energy using his influence, and campaigning, on behalf of a private
consortium seeking to develop a major infrastructure project. In that context, Clover’s article included
the following sentence “He says it will
bring him personally no benefit – although his wife, Elizabeth Haywood, is an
adviser to the company”. If this is
indeed true, it puts rather a different gloss on Hain’s claim about the lack of
a ‘personal’ interest.
Posts
3 comments:
It's a tough one. In Wales his involvement is probably preventing some people from supporting the project. But they don't need support in Wales (though they'd like it) as much as they do from the UK Government, where Hain is not seen as that controversial a figure.
Pension fund?
As we know from his campaign expenses fiasco, Hain's grasp on what constitutes a 'financial interest' is somewhat fuzzy.
Post a Comment