In the proposal to build a carbon capture coal fired power station at Hunterston, ‘Ayrshire Power’ the company now fronting the punt has run into a broad spectrum and powerful opposition whose members include the Scottish Wildlife Trust, Largs Yacht Haven, Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park and a couple of less likely compadres, Christian Aid and Oxfam. Both are – rightly – objecting on green grounds amidst concerns that were this project to be allowed to proceed, it would make it impossible for Scotland to meet its emissions reduction target.
Given the objections from Scottish Natural Heritage to wind farm proposals – which generally seem set on autopilot, it is strange that SNH is not on board the raft of objectors. This would seem a more natural target for SNH opposition. Is there something we should know?
There is a majority at Holyrood against the proposal. Several thousand position papers have been received as part of the public consultation which comes ot an end on 20th August.
In spite of the clear feeling at Holyrood, the Scottish Government went ahead and included the project in the Scottish National Planning Framework. Some of those objecting to the proposal have mounted a legal challenge.
The Government’s premature action adds to the embarrassment and the complex difficulties in proceeding in this climate.
Look at Clydeport’s track record on Corporate Social Responsibility and community consultation
Our take on this is different – but equally significant. The original proposal emanates from the landowner, Clydeport. Ayrshire Power is a company formed as a subsidiary of Clydeport’s immediate corporate parent, Peel Ports.
Alarmed at the concerted opposition met by the proposition, Ayrshire Power is now trumpeting what a fantastic opportunity this project is for Scotland and is quoted as saying that it ‘welcomes the comments of all groups and individuals to our project proposal which is of international significance. It is important that members of the public have the opportunity to express their views.’
Remember that Ayrshire Power is in a stable that has no Corporate Social Responsibility nor any interest in adopting one.
Remember too that this is the stable, locally led by Clydeport, which directly refused to entertain the views of the public in Loch Striven when the company, with no community consultation whatsoever – at any stage – rammed the six Maersk container ships into the remote and silent loch for laying up – metres from the shoreside homes of the local residents.
What is more, Margaret Mackay, Clydeport’s MD, refused flatly even to entertain concerns on the matter from Scottish Government Ministers, MSPs from across the Highlands and Islands and the area’s Westminster representative – all of whom simply wanted the company to consult whit the community. She simply cited Clydeport’s statutory authority which renders them utterly unaccountable unless they actually break the law.
This was a classic two-fingered, force majeure response. Ayrshire take note.
It has to be said that in her responses to written concerns from such sources, Ms Mackay is no respected of person. She wrote some of the most rude and impertinent letters we have seen – and we have have authored a few ourselves.
Anyone in Ayrshire, any organisation and any individual concerned about this proposal can be sure that their responses may be received – because the consultation process provides an address for them – but Ayrshire Power will pay them no attention.
All such interested parties should pay attention to the modus operandi of Clydeport, part of the corporate network of John Whittaker, the privateer based in the low tax regime of the Isle of Man.
The Loch Striven affair has only just ended with the return to service of the Maersk ships. During their year-long presence in the loch Maersk showed how a company wedded to corporate social responsibility should behave – and Clydeport learned nothing,
If, by default or contrivance, Ayrshire and the Scottish Government ‘buy’ this project, it really is time to remember: ‘caveat emptor’.
Thanks for your article. There is an interesting parallel in the way that the Danish companies involved (Maersk at Loch Striven and Dong at Hunterston) have behaved. Both appear to be much more socially responsible and have moved fairly quickly to distance themselves from Peel and its subsidiary companies.
There are also useful insights into the way Clydeport/Peel operates which will be useful to people campaigning on the Hunterston proposal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Rae: It’s worth noting that during our own ongoing campaign on Clydeport’s conduct, we have received, at very frequent intervals, communications from employees at a range of port businesses – across the UK and Ireland – taken over by Peel Ports. These communications detail – with negative vigour – the post-acquisition procedure employed by the company. A high percentage of the information we have been given involves Clydeport’s MD, Margaret Mackay, who seems to be deployed across the Peel Ports’ portfolio in a role best describes as corporate deforestation – worthy of the wrong side in Avatar.
Only neanderthal companies these days refuse to have and apply corporate social responsibility policies.
Ayrshire should be aware that it is looking at a relationship with corporate Flintstones – only without the primitive charm and the sense of humour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks again for the information. Been trying to make a bit of sense of the Peel company structure as there seem to be quite a lot of companies in the group. John Whittaker seems to be a director of 370 companies! A co-director of Peel Holdings Energy (No2) Ltd has 562 appointments. Still working away on this but if anyone has useful information, it would be gratefully received.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: Argyll News: Community benefit from renewables? Scottish Government ignores valuable Crown Estate and slips in carbon storage :Argyll,renewables,carbon capture storage,Crown Estate, | For Argyll