UK (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Lord Duncan faces inquiry over helping a nuclear firm in a meeting between Terrestrial Energy and a minister, raising conflict of interest concerns.
As reported by The Guardian, the House of Lords watchdog has opened an investigation into a Conservative peer. He facilitated a meeting for a Canadian nuclear technology firm with a government minister. The peer also served as an adviser to the company.
What’s behind the inquiry into Lord Duncan’s role with the nuclear firm?
An investigation is underway to determine if Ian Duncan breached parliamentary rules. He helped introduce a minister to the CEO of the company. At the time, Duncan was serving on the company’s advisory board.
The Lord’s commissioners for standards have launched an inquiry into Lord Duncan of Springbank. The rules prohibit peers from seeking to
“profit from membership of the house by accepting or agreeing to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services.”
The probe was launched after the Guardian revealed in April that he assisted Terrestrial Energy in arranging a 2023 meeting with then-nuclear minister Andrew Bowie.
The meeting allowed Terrestrial Energy’s CEO to lobby for UK government funding.
What benefits did Duncan get as an adviser to the nuclear company?
Duncan, who previously served as a junior climate minister, has acted as an adviser to the firm since 2020.
No salary has been paid to him for his position. Instead, he received share options. These allow him to purchase shares at a favourable price if the firm succeeds.
How did Duncan’s email help Terrestrial Energy secure a key Government meeting?
Freedom of Information documents reveal that in 2023, Duncan sent a letter from Simon Irish, CEO of Terrestrial Energy, to the minister.
Irish’s letter asked Bowie for a meeting to introduce himself and Terrestrial Energy, aiming to brief the minister on the company’s products. He further stated that the company had partnered with another entity to apply for a grant from the UK’s nuclear fuel fund scheme.
In an email to Bowie, Duncan signed himself as “Lord D of S” and wrote,
“Sorry this letter has taken so long to get to you … The chap in question is in town the week commencing 1 May, if you have any availability. I realise it’s short notice but I thought it might be better than a zoom. Good to see your youngster bobbing up on my timeline beaming away merrily. Please pass on my best wishes to [name blacked out].”
The Whitehall official emailed back, stating that Bowie “would be pleased” to meet Irish and asked for contact details. Duncan provided that information and forwarded the message to Irish, advising him to reach out to officials to arrange the meeting.
What did Duncan say about his role in the Terrestrial Energy meeting?
When asked, Lord Duncan said he was confident no regulations were broken. He described the meeting as a continuation of talks already held between the company and officials.
He said,
“In forwarding on this letter to Andrew Bowie, I was introducing a representative from a company already known to the government and with whom the representatives of the government had met previously.”
According to him, Terrestrial Energy has given no new share options or compensation since 2020, stating,
“Such options in private companies have no value when granted, and only have prospective value on an exit, which is entirely uncertain, and may be many years after the grant.”
Peers with consultancies
- David Blunkett
- Company: DLA Piper
- Party: Labour
- Andrew Lansley
- Company: Low Associates
- Party: Conservative
- Natalie Evans
- Company: Rud Pedersen
- Party: Conservative
- John Woodcock
- Company: The Purpose Coalition (formerly Purpose Business Coalition)
- Party: Crossbencher
What did the House of Lords say about peer consultancies?
A House of Lords spokesperson stated,
“The code of conduct obliges members to adhere to high standards of transparency and propriety. It requires members to register and declare relevant interests and to maintain a clear distinction between their outside interests and their parliamentary activities.”