Underpin Consultants recently produced a report alongside independent experts called The AFD Delivery Report. In this report, Lewis English, Change and Growth Consultant, produced the report to the highest independent standards. The report was entitled ‘Installing and Maintaining the AFD at Hinkley Point C: A 2024 update on innovation and expertise Delivering the Government-Mandated Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD) at Hinkley Point C.’
The report was designed to show the updated technology and innovation that has been created in the eight years since work stopped on designing the specific AFD at Hinkley Point C and to show that it is viable; contrary to alternative views,.
It uses existing reports and unpaid experts to deliver an update. Underpin Consultants was paid for the compiling of the report, and to act as a spokesperson. All of the underlying expertise was provided freely, without payment and without editing.
From Lewis English, Consultant: Underpin Consultants: “My role as a consultant for The AFD Delivery Group was to compile and get the report signed off by the unpaid experts, including the ROV, AFD, Subsea Engineer and Environment Science experts. I did not change or ask for any specific information and all information was provided freely.
The non-payment of experts was a conscious choice made by the group to ensure its integrity.
Fish Guidance Systems attended the meetings relating to the Acoustic Fish Deterrent system, as would be expected for the company who had developed the technology. The meetings in which, for example, the tidal times, amount of time working, and the vessel choices were discussed, Fish Guidance was not present.
The substance of the report is from existing information provided by EDF and other organisations.
It is worth noting that the independence of AFD work and advocacy has been challenged before. An accusation was leveled at Fish Guidance Systems in 2021 during a public inquiry. This was the Independent Inspector’s response at the time.” Source here – P125 – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6310b3e08fa8f5579e65ef94/environmental-permit-appeal-app-epr-573-hinkley-point-c.pdf
“At the outset of the Inquiry we were treated to witnessing the criticisms of Dr Turnpenny and Dr Lambert (from Fish Guidance Systems), imputing that they had some personal financial motivation for giving the evidence in the way that they have to this Inquiry. Their evidence was that the AFD system was practicable and effective. This is exactly the same position that both have advanced for many years before this Inquiry. Dr Turnpenny, as the Inquiry has already heard, was part of the team that designed the LVSE – it is not Dr Turnpenny’s and Dr Lambert’s position that had changed….The simple fact behind those criticisms of these two Doctors, both of whom are scientists, and many of whose papers are relied on in the appellant’s own case, is that Dr Lambert’s company is one of a number of suppliers of this type of technology. They were not guaranteed to gain from adopting this stance at the Inquiry, a stance that is consistent with their research and writing over many years. If one is to level charges of financial gain, ironically the only party guaranteed to have a financial benefit from not supplying and maintaining the AFD equipment over the 60-year period of operation of HPC is the appellant.””
