Energy Prices

Debate between Caroline Flint and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said in the House on 2 April 2014 and have done many times since—I reminded the House about this today—the price freeze will stop energy companies increasing their prices but will not stop them cutting them. Therefore I am afraid the Secretary of State’s statements are seriously misleading, albeit unintentionally, I am sure. Can you tell me how he can correct the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

That is not a point of order; it is a continuation of the debate. The Secretary of State is responsible for what he says at the Dispatch Box. Fortunately, I am not, unless it is unparliamentary, and so far he has not been.

[Mr Davey]

I will try my best not to be unparliamentary, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the benefit of the House let me quote what the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), a shadow Cabinet colleague of the right hon. Member for Don Valley, has been reported as saying on Andrew Neil’s programme this morning: She said:

“We didn't use the word ‘cap’.”

I can show the House the Labour advert for the price freeze. I see a block of ice, and I see the words “frozen” and “freeze” but I do not see a picture of a cap. There is no cap on that advert. It is that there has been a change and that the Opposition are in complete confusion.

Let me put on record the fact that I am grateful for the support of the right hon. Member for Don Valley—she has supported, rather belatedly, our support for the deepest ever investigation of energy markets by the Competition and Markets Authority, which is now under way. However, there is one major caveat. Labour’s support for the CMA would be more credible—Labour would be more credible—if Labour was prepared to wait until just later this year to see the report; Labour could wait for the independent advice of the CMA before anyone regulates. If the CMA says that new regulations are needed to protect the consumer, I, for one, will back that. I doubt that new regulations will be its main recommendation, but I am sure of one thing: any regulation the CMA comes up with will be far more effective, far better thought out and far more likely to work than the frankly daft regulations Labour continues to propose. The fact that Labour will not wait for the independent CMA exposes its policy for what it is: a cheap political gimmick.

That is my second argument: Labour’s regulation would be bad for consumers and would put up prices. The first issue is the utter incoherence and inconsistency of Labour’s proposed regulations. Labour wants to freeze prices and, at the same time, force retail prices to go up and down with wholesale prices. As we saw earlier, the right hon. Member for Don Valley cannot explain which policy Labour now prefers: a freeze or yo-yo bills. Worse still, it now seems that Labour’s price freeze is not really a price freeze. She keeps on trying to deny it, but I have quoted the hon. Member for Leeds West and shown the figures. I can also quote The Sun. Under the headline “Mili may ditch price freeze vow”, a senior Labour source is quoted as saying:

“If bills are coming down there will have to be a rebranding to make it a cap.”

Clearly, Labour’s high command is worried: it knows that its price freeze would mean higher bills, as some of us have warned all along.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Caroline Flint and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I know that the hon. Gentleman heard me earlier; he clearly saw me. Interventions must be short.

[Caroline Flint]

I do not know how to follow the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because it is a good example of the grandstanding that has been going on. I should love the hon. Gentleman to send me the figures from Hampshire county council. Seven million pounds a year? I should very much like to see those figures, because I am not sure that they relate only to senior executive pay.

I have made it clear that I am not standing up for those who pay over the odds. [Interruption.] I have made that very clear, as the Minister for Housing and Local Government will see if he consults Hansard. What I am saying is that it is a distraction to suggest that the sort of cuts in executive pay that I have described, whether they involve 50% of chief executives or 25% of the senior management team, can make a significant dent in the savings that councils are having to find.

We are often told that if councils cannot use their reserves and if cuts in executive pay are not enough, they can make their savings by sharing services or merging back-room functions. Let us leave aside the fact that more than 200 councils are already sharing services or facilities, or are planning to do that. If creative service redesign could protect services and stop unnecessary job losses we would support it, as would our local Labour colleagues, but by front-loading the cuts as the Secretary of State has chosen to do, the Government have given councils no choice other than to find immediate savings, which will actually mean cuts in services and jobs.

We have heard a great deal today about Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham, but as ever, the devil is in the detail. When we go beyond the headlines, we find that although those councils will lose more than £50 million in funding this year, savings for this year amount to only £5 million. We can only conclude either that the Secretary of State is so detached from the real world that he does not understand that, or that this is a deliberate tactical attempt to distract attention from the problems created by the Tory-led Government. In either event, councils and the communities that they serve deserve better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Flint]

Well, so far as Sheffield is concerned, part of the problem is that the Liberal Democrats are running scared. They have deferred the decisions because they think they can pull the wool over the eyes of the people of Sheffield, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that is not going to work.

I want to say something about back-room staff in local government. Efficient administration: yes, of course we need that, but every organisation needs people in the back-room as well—even the Secretary of State’s Department. It is a pretence to believe that administrative jobs are not necessary. Worst of all is the unfairness. The communities who rely the most on the services that their council provides will be hardest hit. Every time the Government hit the airwaves we are told how progressive this settlement is—but I am afraid that they do not know the meaning of the word. What is fair about the most deprived communities facing cuts four times as deep as those in the most prosperous areas? What is progressive about a finance settlement in which every resident in Hackney loses £180, while people in the Prime Minister’s constituency lose only a fiver? Even Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors know that that is neither fair nor progressive.

The Tory leader of Blackpool council, Peter Callow, told the BBC that this Government had “let down poorer areas”. Perhaps that is why David Faulkner, the Liberal Democrat leader of Newcastle council—the Liberal Democrats’ flagship council in the north-east—agreed that the Secretary of State is

“the worst Secretary of State we have had”.

Perhaps that is why, in a private e-mail sent to Liberal Democrat councillors from the Local Government Association just last week, we learnt that—[Interruption.] I know that the Secretary of State does not want to listen to this. We learnt that

“concerns about the weakness of the Secretary of State have been raised within all three of the main political groups at the LGA and the message has been heard loud and clear by leading figures in the Government. The situation has been likened to having a republican in charge of the monarchy.”

As for the big society, with every day that passes it looks more and more like a big sham. We have heard from Volunteering England, which accused the Government of undermining charities. Last week Liverpool City council had to pull out of the big society pilot because it saw how ridiculous it was for the Government to laud the virtues of the voluntary sector on the one hand, while pulling the rug from underneath it on the other. Just this Monday, Dame Elisabeth Hoodless of Community Service Volunteers warned that the “draconian” cuts to local government were “destroying volunteering”. But as the Prime Minister said earlier this afternoon, what does she know? She is only the mother of the big society, the executive director of Britain’s largest volunteering charity.

Up and down the country, as a direct result of the choices of this Government, councils are being forced to cut back funding to community groups and voluntary organisations. If they cannot pick up the reins, who will take responsibility for providing the services that this Government have dismantled?

However, Ministers’ most insidious claim is that councils that have built up good services to help poor, elderly or vulnerable people will deliberately cut those services, rather than bureaucracy, in order to cause suffering for political gain. That is an outrageous slur, and it is beneath the dignity of Ministers to level the claim. It is a sure sign of how empty the Government’s arguments are that they drag out that myth in order to slander the reputations of decent councillors.

The blame for all this lies solely and squarely with this Tory-led Government, because the biggest myth of all is that there is no alternative. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is an alternative. We do not deny that there is a deficit and that it needs tackling, but the Government’s decision to eliminate the deficit over this Parliament is a choice, not a necessity. Labour’s plan was to halve the deficit over four years. That would have meant local government cuts, but not cuts as deep as this. The Government’s decision to front-load the cuts, so that the heaviest reductions fall in the first year, is a choice, not a necessity. We would have spread the cuts more evenly over four years, giving councils time to plan where savings could be found. The Government’s decision to skew the funding system so that the poorest councils are hardest hit is a choice, not a necessity. We would have shared the cuts much more fairly, ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders bore the greatest burden. The Government have made their choice, and they must take responsibility for the consequences.

Flush with cash from their chums in the City, this Government may be laughing all the way to the bank, but local councils and the communities they serve are crying out for more help and more time. In every part of the country and in all communities, people are rallying together, standing side by side, shoulder to shoulder, against this Government’s reckless cuts. They are the real big society, and they are telling this Government that they are going too far, too fast. The teaching assistants, social workers and street cleaners marching for their jobs: they are telling this Government that they are going too far, too fast. The pensioners occupying their local libraries and clearing the shelves of books: they are telling this Government that they are going too far, too fast. The families going door to door with petitions to save their local Sure Start centre: they are telling this Government that they are going too far, too fast.

The Government are not listening but we are, and that is why, today, Labour will vote against a local government settlement that reflects none of the concerns of councillors and communities about going too far, too fast. I urge all Members to stand up for their communities and the services they hold dear, and join us in the Lobby tonight.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I have to announce the results of the Divisions deferred from previous days. In the Division on the question relating to the financial stabilisation mechanism, the Ayes were 297 and the Noes were 45, so the Ayes have it. On the question relating to police, the Ayes were 501 and the Noes were 18, so the Ayes have it. On the question relating to taxation of the financial sector, the Ayes were 295 and the Noes were 223, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]