Energy Market Reform
Debate between Simon Hughes and Caroline Flint(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Caroline Flint
That is another bit of casework to look into. The obstructions to energy plans are numerous. At our party conference, we launched the “Power Book”, which is a collection of ideas and articles on ways to decentralise energy through energy generation and energy efficiency. It looks at ways in which community groups can be supported, rather than hindered, in doing the right thing. In many ways, that could be far more cost-effective.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
When I did the right hon. Lady’s job at the end of the last Parliament and shadowed the current leader of the Labour party, who was then the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, I tried to get Labour and Ofgem to reduce the number of tariffs from a ridiculous number to a small number. That was not done. Secondly, I tried to get them to legislate to persuade Ofgem that there should be an obligation to reduce the price to the consumer when the wholesale price went down, and not to leave it for six, nine or twelve months. None of those things was delivered. I welcome the conversion, but does the right hon. Lady not recognise that it has come several years later than it could have done?
Caroline Flint
On the basis of the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution, I look forward to our being in the same Lobby for the vote. Our proposals would tackle some of the issues that gradual reform has not tackled. The energy market has changed a lot since it has been privatised. Efforts were made to enable Ofgem to be stronger, but on the evidence of the past few years, it has not been. That is why we believe that our proposals, which are now on the stocks, are the best ones to take us towards a market that is more competitive and more use to consumers.
Caroline Flint
I absolutely agree, and I commend the Select Committee for its fantastic work over the past year. Since I have been in my post, it has been most useful to my discussions and thoughts about how policy should develop.
Thirdly—this takes me on to Ofgem’s role—I am afraid that too often in the past, Ofgem has ducked the opportunity to get tough with the energy giants. I believe that we therefore need to create a tough new regulator that people can trust. I can tell the House that we seriously considered whether it would be better to reform Ofgem or start again from scratch. In the end, I do not believe that just giving Ofgem new powers is the answer, because it is not using the powers that it already has. It has failed to enforce its own rules, and time after time it has let the energy companies get away with ripping off hard-pressed families and pensioners.
As I said earlier, when Ofgem removed price controls a decade ago, it did so in the belief that competition had developed sufficiently, and that privatisation had delivered a functioning competitive market. It is now clear that that was a mistake. Almost every indicator, such as consumer engagement and market share pricing, gives us cause for concern. The answer is not to go back to nationalisation but to reform the energy market to make it more open, transparent and competitive. Until that happens, we must ensure that the regulator has the power and authority that it needs to protect consumers.
That was why, at the Labour party conference, I announced that the next Labour Government would abolish Ofgem and create a tough new regulator with a statutory duty to monitor the relationship between the prices that energy companies pay for their energy and the bills that the public pay. It would have the power to force companies to pass on price cuts when wholesale costs fall. It would be a new watchdog with new powers, new responsibilities—including for small businesses and off-grid customers—a new focus and new leadership.
Caroline Flint
I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman already. I am sure he will want to make a speech, and I will be very interested to hear any other policy ideas.
The Government promised change, but nothing is changing. Energy bills are up by more than £200 on their watch and fewer people than ever are engaging with the energy market, which is untransparent, uncompetitive and unfair. People need real help now and a more responsible energy market for the future, which is simpler, works in the public interest and protects the most vulnerable. Real action, not warm words—that is Labour’s promise, as shown in today’s motion, which I really do commend to Members of all parties.
Jobs and Growth in a Low-carbon Economy
Debate between Simon Hughes and Caroline Flint
Caroline Flint
Of course, the Conservative attitude to wind, offshore or onshore, has been represented by 101 Conservative MPs who wrote to their Prime Minister complaining about our attempts as a country to utilise that resource that is at our disposal. Unfortunately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes that we should not pursue the potential of this new energy revolution faster than Europe—we should go back to the slow lane. In the 1980s wind developers decided that there was insufficient support from the Government of the time—we all know which party that was—and they went elsewhere. That is why Denmark became the world leader in this area and we missed an opportunity.
As a result of those decisions in the 1980s, we have been playing catch-up ever since. We must not destroy the foundations laid in the past five years or so by not making the right decisions now and playing to those who do not understand that the future is a new form of energy and a new way of empowering our citizens to control prices and at the same time have cleaner energy.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
It is entirely the case that not everything done by the Labour Government in this area was ineffective or poor, and I pay tribute to the things that they did. The one thing that they did not wake up to until the very last months of the Labour Administration was the need to do much more for renewable energy. Does the right hon. Lady accept that the figures when Labour left office show that of all the 27 EU countries, the UK was at the top for the amount that it still needed to do in percentage terms to reach its 2020 target of 15%? The UK had 12.8% yet to go, compared with all the other countries, which had made a much more significant change during the period of our Labour Administration.
Caroline Flint
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in acknowledging that the Labour Government achieved a number of important milestones in renewable energy, and showed leadership worldwide in setting climate change targets and targets for the reduction of carbon emissions that were and continue to be challenging. However, I do not accept the woeful description of what we did in government. We doubled renewable energy generation and established Britain as a world leader in offshore wind capacity and in the prototype development of wave and tidal technology, but our achievements are now under threat. As a result of this Government’s mixed messages and failing policies, investment in green growth in the UK is falling. For instance, investment in wind energy fell by 40% in the first year they were in power.
Caroline Flint
I was trying to be helpful in terms of where we are. When we left government, we recognised that we did need to build more nuclear power stations. I am not sure whether all the Conservative party’s coalition partners necessarily accept that. I think that they have an opt-out from any vote on the issue on the Floor of the House.
Caroline Flint
That is correct, I hear from the right hon. Gentleman.
Labour is clear that nuclear has to be part of energy provision. I am merely saying, in a constructive way, that we know from projects overseas that often such projects—63 are under way worldwide—are not delivered on time and come in over budget. We must ensure that not only our civil servants but our industrial partners are seeing what lessons can be learned to avoid our repeating some of the risks that have delayed projects elsewhere. I think that it is helpful to offer that to the debate and to assure the Government of our support for developing energy in this field as part of the diverse mix that we need.
Localism Bill
Debate between Simon Hughes and Caroline Flint(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, whilst affirming its belief in the important principle of devolving power to local people and their elected representatives, declines to give a Second Reading to the Localism Bill because the proposed devolution of power to local authorities is undermined both by the extent to which the Bill hands powers to the Secretary of State to over-ride those devolved powers and by the extent of powers of the Secretary of State to direct local authorities in their governance arrangements, and because the community empowerment and neighbourhood planning sections of the Bill, which have been put together hastily and without adequate consultation with important stakeholders, would cause the planning functions of local authorities to become incoherent and ineffective and create new costly and complex systems of service procurement and would reduce the effectiveness of local authorities; and is strongly of the opinion that the publication of such a Bill should have been preceded by both fuller consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill.”
After all the delays, the false storms, the spin and the briefings, finally we have the Bill where it should be—before the House. It is a Bill that we will demonstrate over the coming weeks will not, I am afraid, revolutionise local politics, empower the masses to shake up their town halls or reinvigorate local democracy. It is a Bill that the Business Secretary rightly described as “not thought through”. Above all, the Bill empowers one person: the Secretary of State. We believe in devolving power to local communities and giving people a real say in how their local area is run: we believe that power should rest in the hands of the many, not the few; and we are optimistic because we have faith that there are few problems so intractable that local communities do not ultimately have the answer.
We would welcome and support a Bill, therefore, that genuinely devolved powers, which is what the Localism Bill was meant to do. We were promised a radical redistribution of power from central Government to people —a new dawn for people power and a groundbreaking shift in power to councils and communities. We were told that this would be the first Government to leave office with much less power in Whitehall than they started with. Today we see that that is just another broken promise. If page 1 of the Bill gives local councils the power to do whatever they like to improve their local areas, why do we need a further 405 pages?
This Bill fails to live up to its name. For all the Government’s talk of localism, the Bill does nothing to convince us that it is anything more than a smokescreen for unprecedented cuts to local communities up and down the country. All those warm words about devolving power and empowering communities ring hollow when, at the same time, local councils face cuts that go deeper than in almost any other Whitehall Department; cuts that fall heaviest in the first year; cuts that hit the most deprived communities the hardest. There is nothing localist about that.
Let us nail the myth that local councils can spare front-line services simply by cutting executive pay, trimming waste and sharing backroom functions, because they cannot. I know that maths is obviously not the Secretary of State’s strong point, because last week he was telling the newspapers about how good the Tory canvass returns were looking in Oldham. We support greater transparency in the pay of senior officials in the public sector and the measures to increase pay accountability in local government, and the right hon. Gentleman does not need a calculator to work out that cutting executive pay and streamlining administration will not help a single council to avoid cutting front-line services.
Simon Hughes
The right hon. Lady produced some wry smiles when she said how strongly Labour had been in favour of devolving to local councils. I would like her to be honest, at the beginning of the debate, about her own legacy. Was the previous 13 years of central power and no devolution a mistake that she now greatly regrets, or do all local councils and everybody else have some sort of fallacious memory? Have we all missed something, because that is not their view on the ground, whatever colour they are?
Caroline Flint
I think that what we can see is a steady devolution to local government. I can see—[Interruption.] Interestingly enough, I can see how clauses in the Bill build on Labour’s record in local government. The problem occurs when the right hon. Gentleman tries to suggest that the Localism Bill will shape the future of local government. I am afraid that what will shape the future of local government and how it operates with its partners in the voluntary and private sectors are the cuts, which are doing such a large amount of damage to some of those great partnerships. I refuse to accept from those on the Government Benches that somehow they invented localism or opportunities for communities to take control of assets and have a say. That is just not true.
Local Government Funding
Debate between Simon Hughes and Caroline Flint
Caroline Flint
I do, and whether in local government, education or health, it is the poorest and vulnerable who are being hit the hardest, as well as those hard-working families who pay their way, but who also depend on local services to provide for themselves and their families. They do not ask for much from the Government, but they ask for them to be on their side—to make sure that work pays and that they can look after their families—and this Government are not providing that security. The whole House knows why that has happened—why local councils will lose almost one third of their funding over the next four years.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
A debate about local government is welcome, because local government and its financing are important, but as the right hon. Lady launches her attack on the Government, as she is entitled to do, will she make her position clear,? Did not her Government, when in office, say that there would be a £52 billion cut in public services? How much of that would have fallen on local government? Was the decision to end the working neighbourhoods fund and to cut regeneration funding not taken in March by her Government’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was in office?
Caroline Flint
On the working neighbourhoods fund, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has fallen into his Tory coalition partners’ trap. The Tories say, and he repeats the claim, that we planned to scrap the working neighbourhoods fund and had already cut money from it. In the March Budget we did announce savings, including £300 million through rationalising the regional development agencies, but we clearly distinguished between those programmes that were not a priority and would therefore be scrapped and those, including the working neighbourhoods fund, to which we were committed but would look to find savings in. It was a three-year programme in which, in November 2009—[Hon. Members: “Three years.”]. Three years’ funding is more than the one year that we used to have under Tory Governments, and more than the non-existent funding that poorer communities had under the Tory Government from 1979 to 1997.
Indeed, in November 2009 we announced a £40 million boost to the fund, worth £1.5 billion from 2008-09 to 2009-10. Of course, we had to look at programmes, but there is no evidence whatever to suggest that we would have scrapped the working neighbourhoods fund. That is not the case.
Simon Hughes
Of course councils make representations both collectively and singly and, understandably, once councils of all parties, including those run by Liberal Democrats, heard the announcement of the CSR in October, they told the Government that they thought the front loading of the four-year settlement was not as desirable as a more evenly spread reduction. I share that view. I intervened on the Secretary of State asking him if there was an opportunity to have a flatter reduction over the four years. He did not give a final answer because, of course, that is a decision that will be left until the formal announcement, but he indicated—I agree it was not definitive—
Simon Hughes
Wait a minute; I want to deal with the question from the right hon. Lady’s colleague first.
The Secretary of State indicated that he was understanding of that point, and it is clear that the Government have done work to see if they can mitigate the effects of a more severe front loading. I, like others, will wait to see the outcome of that. I hope it will be possible to mitigate the effects. If it is, that will be a major achievement; if it is not, it is to be regretted. However, there are many good things about the settlement so far that was announced in the CSR, as there are also some proper concerns, one of which the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) rightly enumerated.
Caroline Flint
Part of the reason that the Opposition decided to use a whole day of Opposition time to debate this subject is that we think we should lobby and pressure the Government on it. I must ask the hon. Gentleman something. Would it not have been better if, instead of having the formula grant profile announced in the comprehensive spending review show a decrease next year of 10.7%, and then reductions of 6.4, 0.9 and 5.6% for the following three years, the Government could have spread the cuts evenly over that four-year period? They have created completely unnecessary mayhem and fear out there.
Simon Hughes
I say clearly to the right hon. Lady that, as I have indicated, I have argued publicly and privately that it would be better for the spending reduction to be spread more evenly. I have been into the Department to make that case. A parliamentary committee of Liberal Democrats from both Houses has collectively made that case, and it includes people who have been leaders of local councils. I understand and share the view that it would clearly be easier for local government to manage a gradual reduction than sudden and bigger reductions in the first two years, a small reduction in the third year and then an intermediate reduction. There is no disagreement on this issue between the right hon. Lady and me, and there is not much disagreement between councils of all colours around the country, which are making that point to the Government. I hope that the Government and Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government have been able to make some progress on that point, given that they obviously have to start with an announcement made by the Chancellor which reduces their flexibility—we will doubtless hear when the settlements are made.
Defendant Anonymity
Debate between Simon Hughes and Caroline Flint(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Flint
I certainly was not seeking to provide evidence to support the Government’s position. I was providing evidence to explain why the Government’s position was wrong. What I have failed to receive is evidence from the Government as to why they are pursuing this singular policy of anonymity for rape defendants.
In one of Baroness Stern’s 23 recommendations—I hope that the Government will give the other 22 equal time and priority—she asks that there should be research, and
“that the Ministry of Justice commissions and publishes an independent research report to study the frequency of false allegations of rape compared with other offences, and the nature of such allegations.”
She was saying that the matter should be looked at in the round.
As I said earlier, I am sad today that the opportunity was not taken by the Government to knock this coalition proposal on the head and move us into an area where we could find some consensus and agreement across all parts of the House.
Simon Hughes
In that context, if the evidence that Baroness Stern and others have asked for is forthcoming, in the form of further research, would the right hon. Lady be prepared to look at an idea that goes more broadly than rape? Is she willing to accept, at least in principle, that there may be a case for anonymity in other categories, not single-offence categories?