In Government I’m doing everything I can to ‘cushion’ people from bill increases. Wholesale energy prices make up nearly half of the typical household bill and controlling the recent increases is outside of our control. However, there’s a whole range of measures that we’re introducing to help people to keep their homes warm and their bills down – particularly the Green Deal, with the latest figures showing a very encouraging start. Already, more than 18,000 people have had assessments carried out on their homes.

Yesterday my Department launched a range of new measures to make tariff switching even simpler.

A massive 84% of households don’t switch and they could be missing out on better deals saving them up to £158 per year. We’ve announced that Government will give full backing to Ofgem’s proposals on tariff reform, and powers in the Energy Bill will ensure there will be no watering down and no delay in consumers getting the full benefits of the reforms.

The new measures will begin to take effect this summer putting more power into consumers’ hands.

People will no longer be stuck on ‘dead’ tariffs, and they will automatically be moved to the suppliers’ cheapest variable rate. There are also new measures to cut the number of core tariffs to four per gas and electricity supplier and make bills far easier to understand, including electronic information allowing price comparisons to be made at the swipe of a smart phone.

Tariff reform alone may still not be enough – we have to use every tool in the box to make it simple to switch. That’s why I’ve announced a £900,000 ‘Big Energy Saving Network’ that will work with voluntary organisations and community groups to help vulnerable consumers become savvy switchers and seek out the best deals.

We are also analysing the first results of ‘collective switching’ which has seen communities across the country get together and boost their energy buying power. The results of two early schemes are impressive; consumers are finding they could switch and save up to £223 per household.

Consumers also need greater assurances that they’ll get treated fairly by energy suppliers and that the switching sites they use are genuine. We’ve introduced two measures in the Energy Bill to protect consumers. Ofgem will be given new powers to crack down on any rogue switching sites, and when energy suppliers break the rules, customers can now be directly compensated. This would be in addition to the hefty fines that can already be imposed.

This package of measures balance the scales and puts more power in the hands of consumers, and bolsters the protection they need to ensure they won’t be ripped off.

* Edward Davey is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and MP for Kingston and Surbiton

No country can stop the main cause of this – rising and high world prices for oil and gas. Yet we must do everything we can, to help people and firms struggling with these bills, especially the most vulnerable. And that’s why helping with energy bills has been and will be one of my top priorities.

From the Green Deal to be launched at the end of this month to the Energy Company Obligation, now in force. From the reform of tariffs to increased competition. We must look at all options to help. And that’s why I want your help to push my idea for collective purchase of energy.

Liberals have always believed in the important role of both co-operation and competition. As Competition and Consumer Affairs Minister in the Department of Business, I brought these two things together by launching a co-operative purchasing initiative. Communities coming together to use their bulk purchasing power to get good prices for their members.

When I became Secretary of State for Energy I was keen that this became an important priority for the Department. And so we’ve been backing trial schemes and encouraging the development of this new approach to buying energy. Last April, Which?’s Big Switch saw tens of thousands of households  save an average of over £230 annually and I was delighted when Liberal Democrat run South Lakeland council also launched a collective switch which resulted in many of their households saving well over a £100 annually.

But I was determined that more should be done to help hard pressed households. So at our Autumn Conference I announced the “Cheaper Energy Together” competition to encourage local authorities and community groups to follow our and South Lakeland’s lead.  As currently individual poor households are less likely to switch than better off households I made it a condition of the competition that particular focus should be on the fuel poor.

The response has been phenomenal with over 100 entries. Today I announced that 30 groups representing over 80 Councils and community groups have been successful in getting government funding. For those of you in successful areas make sure that residents know that this is a Liberal Democrat initiative to cut bills – and encourage them to register to take part. And for those in areas  which are not yet part of a scheme – get out campaigning for them to join in!

But reducing energy tariffs is not the only, or even the best, way to cut energy bills. The best way to cut energy bills is to help people reduce their energy use. We are already having considerable success cutting energy use by on around 3%pa over the past few years. But we can and must do more. That is why the Liberal Democrat’s flagship Green Deal, which we will launch at the end of this month, will have a critical role to play – helping households improve their energy efficiency.

Our political opponents want to blame climate change policies for higher bills, despite the overwhelming evidence against this. If we don’t reduce Britain’s dependency on imported fossil fuels, with greater energy efficiency and home grown low carbon, people’s bills will just continue to go up.

Liberal Democrats in government have a great story to tell on what we are doing to tackle rising energy bills. But I need your help as Councillors and campaigners to ensure that these policies are translated into real achievement up and down the country. That’s why over the next few months I and my team are giving a high priority to producing campaigning material and training to help you ensure that these policies are successful in your local communities.

* Edward Davey is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and MP for Kingston and Surbiton

68% back decarbonisation amendment rebellion

LDV asked: The Government’s Energy Bill was published in November. In exchange for securing significant investment in the renewable sector up to 2020, Ed Davey dropped a commitment to include a 2030 decarbonisation target opposed by George Osborne. Labour are likely to table an amendment to the Energy Bill to create a target to decarbonise the power sector by 2030 with the aim of persuading enough Lib Dem and Conservative rebels to defeat the Government. Would you support or oppose Lib Dem backbench MPs voting for such an amendment?

• Support 68%
• Oppose 19%
• Don’t know 12%

There’s no doubt what Lib Dem members think: by an overwhelming 68% to 19% there is support for backbench MPs to ‘rebel’ by backing the policy favoured by Ed Davey and the Lib Dems — but which the Lib Dem energy secretary has been unable to persuade the Tories to support. (I’ve written about Ed Davey’s canny statements on this here.)

• Over 1,200 Lib Dem paid-up party members are registered with LibDemVoice.org. Over 500 responded to the latest survey, which was conducted between 7th and 11th December.
• Please note: we make no claims that the survey is fully representative of the Lib Dem membership as a whole. However, LibDemVoice.org’s surveys are the largest independent samples of the views of Lib Dem members across the country, and have in the past offered accurate guides to what party members think.
• For further information on the reliability/credibility of our surveys, please refer to FAQs: Are the Liberal Democrat Voice surveys of party members accurate? and polling expert Anthony Wells’ verdict, On that poll of Lib Dem members.
• The full archive of our members’ surveys can be viewed at www.libdemvoice.org/category/ldv-members-poll

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

The Conservative MP Tim Yeo is taking a principled stand on the Energy Bill and plans to include a ‘decarbonisation target’ amendment as the Bill gets debated in Parliament. He says the Treasury must stop supporting gas and focus on getting a significant percentage of our all electricity from clean sources by 2030.

He told a group of energy investors (FT) in the City:

Lumbering the economy with a centralised power system largely reliant on gas would be like running an office using a fax machine in the age of the iPad.
…
I think the choice facing Britain is clear. We can embrace the technology of the future, set a target to reduce our present heavy dependence on fossil fuels and upgrade our electricity system. Or we can cling to the combustion-based technologies of the past, gamble the future on assumptions about the availability of abundant cheap gas and slow down the process of decarbonising our economy.

Those words should be music to anyone who cares not just for the environment but also for the future of our energy policy. George Osborne is vastly inflating the benefits and returns from Shale Gas ‘fracking’ in the UK. Boris Johnson is helpfully churning out very misleading articles to bolster the case.

I’m writing on LibdemVoice to urge Ed Davey to support the amendment, and to encourage Libdems to lobby him to do so.

We need a decarbonisation target in the Energy Bill to ensure this government does not kick the development of clean energy into the long grass. Our environment and energy needs are too vital to be held ransom by the extremists from the Tory Right.

Obviously I hope the Labour party will also support the amendment, but a lot will depend on how Ed Davey decides to approach it.

The intervention by Tim Yeo is driven by pragmatism not blind ideology. As he told the Radio 4 Today programme yesterday: “What we want to see is scale up the renewable technologies, and that way they may become cost competitive and Britain could be a leader once again in an energy revolution.”

I hope Ed Davey and the Libdems can also get behind that vision.

* Sunny Hundal is editor of Liberal Conspiracy.

I don’t want to add a penny to energy bills that isn’t in the public interest.

I am frankly fed up with commentators suggesting that the Government is deliberately increasing energy bills, when in fact we are doing everything we can to reduce them.

As the independent Committee on Climate Change has confirmed, energy bills could be significantly higher in the coming decades if we do nothing to decarbonise the power sector.

Yes, our climate goals are extremely important.  But I also want people to understand that, over time, our low-carbon policies are intended to keep bills down, not to increase them.

We also place obligations on energy companies in order to improve energy efficiency.  Again, this contributes to that 7% on the average energy bill now, but over time, as the energy efficiency of our building stock is improved, it will help reduce bills, with customers saving money as their homes or businesses require less energy to heat and power.

As a result, taking all Government energy and climate change policies combined, when we look forward to 2020, we estimate that, on average, household energy bills will be lower, not higher, than they would have been without our policies.

You can read the full text of the speech here.

* Mary Reid is the Tuesday Editor on Lib Dem Voice.

• Insists that energy prices overall will be 7% lower than they otherwise would have been in the medium term as a result of government policy, even if prices in real terms may rise due to the worldwide energy market.

• Rejects talk of a government-sanctioned dash for gas as overblown, even if he concedes the Conservatives will big this up.

• Says shale gas will not have a significant short-term contribution to the UK energy mix.

The dispute between Davey and Hayes over the role of onshore windfarms in the energy mix spilled out into the TV studios and became so intense that at one point, Davey discloses, he felt compelled to seek legal advice on whether Hayes’s approach was making the department liable to accusations of bias and judicial review.

And here are a couple of choice quotes from his interview…

Davey emerged from the deal-making to talk up a victory. “Yes, it has taken a bit longer than I expected. It has been a bit more acrimonious than I expected in the sense that we had the statements by John Hayes, my deputy, which was never coalition policy. His behaviour probably made it appear more fractious than it was under the surface.” Davey had Hayes foisted on him as minister of state, and immediately stripped him of renewable energy strategy, leaving him only with his renewable deployment. Davey now discloses: “When he made his statements on renewables against coalition policy, I did think there was a question mark over whether he should even continue to have responsibility for renewable energy deployment. I asked the legal department here whether there was a danger John had prejudiced himself because he had made these statements, and they said there was a danger. They said they could not say it would end up in judicial review, and challenging decisions in which he was involved, but there was a greater potential danger.”

“What we have agreed does not hit the Treasury at all. You get the investment, construction, jobs and growth now, while the cost is spread over 25 years, and you only start paying when the power station is constructed and starts generating. It will only hit bills much later on, by which time the economy will hopefully be doing a lot better and when other policies designed to reduce bills take effect and more than offset the impact on bills.”

He calls projections suggesting that his proposals could increase bills by as much as £180 “nonsense figures”. “The impact on bills is that the costs will rise from today’s 2% figure on average bills, roughly £20, so that by the end of the decade it will gradually rise to 7% on average bills – just under £100. I have never hidden that this will have an impact. It’s what we have said will happen for many years. But equally, if you look at all our green policies, the help on fuel poverty and green efficiency, our estimate is that by 2020 the average bill will be 7% lower than it would have otherwise been – in today’s prices, £94. If we do the energy efficiency, this can be afforded.”

You can read Ed’s interview in full here.

* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary published in print or online.

Everything about this vision is now at stake.

The ‘quad’ – the coalition’s decision-making grouping of Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and Alexander – are locked in negotiations with Lib Dem Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey over a 2030 ‘decarbonisation’ target in the Government’s Energy Bill legislation.

Such a target would commit the UK to almost entirely carbon-free power generation in 20 years’ time, in line with advice from the Government’s independent advisors the Committee on Climate Change. It would give the long term certainty investors and manufacturers need, and would fire the starting gun on a low-carbon revolution.

Liberal Democrats formally voted to support a decarbonisation target at conference in September. Danny Alexander’s motion was warmly supported and is now party policy. Polling by Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace showed this commitment is popular with potential Lib Dem voters, and Lib Dems from across the party including Fiona Hall MEP have articulated why the target is so important.

Friends of the Earth’s recent infographic reveals the immense weight of support among businesses, NGOs and even energy companies. It also shows who opposes the target: the gas-guzzling chancellor and two of the ‘big six’ energy companies.

George Osborne and his anti-wind, climate ‘luke-warmists’ are doing all they can to block the 2030 target’s inclusion in the Energy Bill – even with its expected publication now days away.

If Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander and Ed Davey fail to win this fight and instead deliver George Osborne’s dash for gas, the Lib Dems’ long held and hard won green credentials will be irrecoverable.

As the changing climate bears its teeth in the Americas and Europe and the World Bank, the CIA and PriceWaterhouseCoopers issue stark warnings of our terrifying emissions trajectory, we are relying on brave and principled politicians to seize this tiny window of opportunity to get us on the path to a low-carbon future.

Many Liberal Democrats will highlight the recent wind subsidies fight, the green investment bank and the green deal as examples of Lib Dems’ greening effect in Government.

But these wilt in comparison with the potential consequences of taking carbon out of our power sector. Get this right, and it’s all the easier for other sectors to follow suit.

Get it wrong, and look forward to a raft of new fossil fuel and nuclear power stations, high energy bills, and a continuation of the status quo.

Lib Dems’ ability to secure a 2030 decarbonisation target and all that it unlocks will be the key test of their time in office. It will be this – above everything else – upon which they will be judged.

‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email voice@libdemvoice.org if you are interested in contributing.

* Craig Bennett is Policy and Campaigns Director of Friends of the Earth

The objectives of an energy policy need stating and agreeing. Taking electricity strategy, these objectives should include:

• Assurance of sufficient power
• Least cost delivered power
• Efficiency measures to reduce demand
• Demand reduction by persuasion or pricing?
• Reduction in emissions
• Security, that the lights don’t go out
• Analysing the optimal future fuel mix (coal, gas, nuclear, renewable)
• Maximising renewable power generation to a point where it becomes uneconomic or imposes unacceptable environmental consequences
• Reduction of fuel poverty
• Ensuring the private market is able and likely to implement the preferred solution
• Devising incentive, licensing, franchising, funding etc schemes to correct any market deficiency
• Monitoring progress and deploying timely corrective policies when necessary

These objectives conflict. Reducing emissions increases generating cost, as flue gas desulphurisation did (by 25%). Renewable power is more expensive than fossil fuel power, will help the environment but increase fuel poverty, and harm the competitiveness of the economy. Renewable power has other environmental defects, for example windmills on the visual environment, the Severn Barrage on local wildlife. Many objectives are difficult to measure. Future demand for electricity is climate dependent, grows with the use of more electric appliances, and could leap upwards if electric cars became widely used.

Energy security is now urgent. UK was a net energy exporter, but by 2011 imported 36% of its energy. UK is heavily dependent on foreign supply throughout the value chain, in power plant construction, power plant operation, and fuel. We are wholly dependent on France’s EDF/Areva for nuclear power plant construction. EDF operates 8 of the 9 existing UK nuclear power plants. Over 50% of UK’s coal fuelled power plant capacity is owned and operated by EDF and Germany’s RWE and Eon. 63% of the coal consumed in 2011 was imported. 45% of imported steam coal came from Russia, meaning that Russian coal is responsible for 8.6% of UK electricity generation. This supply is vulnerable, whether for political reasons, force majeure, or because Russian coal earns better margins in the Asian market. In 2011, 53% of natural gas was imported.

In March 2012, Germany’s RWE and Eon scrapped their plans to build 2 new nuclear reactors. France’s Areva and China’s Guangdong Nuclear Power Group withdrew. Apart from EDF, only US Westinghouse and Japan’s Hitachi remain in the running. Nugen owned by Spain’s Iberdrola and France’s GDF Suez may submit a bid by 2015.

Our renewables policy needs to be clearer, stronger and more committed. Only 4.3% of UK 2011 energy consumption was from renewables. We trail Europe in renewable power generation : the EU renewable share is 20%, (Sweden 55%, Denmark 32%, Spain 32%, Italy 26%, Germany 17%, France 14%, UK 10%). But in July 2012, the coalition cut the wind power generation subsidy by 10%. We are back to a dash for more gas. Meanwhile, 4.5m households are in fuel poverty.

UK consumes 370 Terawatt Hours of electricity annually. We must decide how far this can be reduced by energy efficiency, setting a target reduction against realistic affordable measures. Currently generation is 40% gas, 30% coal, 20% nuclear and 10% renewable. We should set a target fuel mix for 2017, 2022 etc. Should this rely on renewables, nuclear and whatever clean coal technology is available, with gas as a premium fuel for heating and cooking? Renewable generation should be maximised to the point of an economic or environmental limit. The twin objectives of reduced emissions and energy security make the Severn Barrage indispensable. Policy instruments should set best thermal efficiency for coal power plants, forcing them to deploy ultra-critical boiler technology.

We are promised the Energy Bill soon. We can only wait with bated breath.

* Geoff Crocker is a professional economist whose book A Managerial Philosophy of Technology is published by Palgrave Macmillan.

Alexander’s intervention is needed. Osborne has seized the environment as an issue and is using it to play to the Tory right in an attempt to save his political skin. This has involved much tilting at wind turbines and charming his friends and relatives by proposing a dash for gas – last week’s announcement on new North Sea drilling was largely made possible by his exceedingly generous tax breaks for fossil fuels.

Osborne even had the audacity to try to force Energy Secretary Ed Davey into an unholy deal – a concession over the Renewables Obligation support for wind energy in return for agreement to promote climate-busting new gas in our future energy mix. As Friends of the Earth has previously argued, Ed Davey must stand up to this pressure. This autumn the Government’s gas strategy and the latest draft of the Energy Bill will be announced and we will see whether he’s managed to hold firm.

Danny Alexander’s motion pushes back on Osborne’s regressive approach. It calls for action on two issues which Friends of the Earth thinks are central to the Government getting it right on climate: strengthening the Green Investment Bank, and decarbonising our electricity sector by 2030. Alexander is to be commended for understanding the importance of these issues and setting Liberal Democrats on a course for change.

But Alexander’s motion proposals will have to be tightened to deliver the action needed. We hope delegates at the Lib Dem conference will take every opportunity to do so. It’s worth getting it right – for political credibility and economic as well as environmental reasons.

The Green Bank needs to be able to borrow now instead of waiting until economic recovery, because green investment will help to dig Britain out of its financial mess. A new CBI report shows that the UK has the ability to become a global front-runner in low-carbon products and services, which could add £20 billion extra in annual GDP by 2015. The green economy is growing faster than the polluting brown economy – and we need the Bank to be fully functioning to keep driving that success forward.

And if we are going to cut the carbon from our electricity by 2030, we need a huge shift away from increasingly costly fossil fuels onto home-grown energy from our sun, wind and sea – central to Friends of the Earth’s Clean British Energy campaign.

That will only happen with the right political framework. Alexander’s motion on energy decarbonisation should call for the Government to accept, not defy, the advice of the independent Committee on Climate Change that “[Ministers] must rule out the dash for gas, and set clear carbon objectives in the context of draft energy legislation and the forthcoming gas generation strategy.” The Committee wrote to Ed Davey in March specifically to recommend a carbon objective of 50 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour by 2030 – explaining it is the level needed to decarbonise our electricity and the cheapest way to meet our legal commitment to tackling climate change.

Friends of the Earth and many other environment NGOs are very concerned that despite protesting opposition to Osborne’s approach, Ed Davey – who as Energy and Climate Change Secretary should be leading the fight – is still not saying he accepts the Committee’s advice and will act on it. Liberal Democrats at conference can help get the party back on track on the environment by backing policy that both supports the Committee’s recommendation and will see it delivered. The environment movement and many voters who backed Liberal Democrats at the last election will be watching this year’s conference motion with interest. But the real test is whether this autumn’s Energy Bill will deliver a clear path to a zero-carbon electricity system. Liberal Democrat Ministers must draw a green line of principle and block Osborne’s dash for gas that shows reckless disregard for our climate change obligations.

Danny Alexander has made a good start.

Although there was understandable relief over the certainty this move gave to investors in clean British energy it seems the victory may have come with a hefty price tag: an agreement to burden our electricity system with dirty and increasingly expensive gas for decades to come – despite the enormous damage this could cause to both the economy and planet.

Ed Davey’s success in securing a 10 per cent cut in wind farm subsidies – to reflect the fall in wind costs – instead of the 25 per cent cut favoured by George Osborne was urgently needed.

Business needs confidence to enable to invest and hopefully his announcement will encourage more firms to invest in the UK’s green economy.

But George Osborne doesn’t share the Lib Dems enthusiasm for clean energy and he’s pushing hard for more dirty gas-fired stations to be built – as revealed this week in an aggressively worded letter from George Osborne to Edward Davey.

If the Chancellor is successful it would be disastrous for both the environment and the economy.

Investing in a fossil fuel-dependent energy system would undermine Government promises to tackle global warming. The Committee on Climate Change – which advises ministers on meeting its legally-binding climate change goals – has recommended that the UK electricity system be almost entirely decarbonised by 2030 in order to meet UK emission reduction targets.

The CBI has also criticised the Chancellor’s lack of support for green energy as bad for business. The green economy is growing at over four per cent each year – while the economy as a whole fell 0.7 per cent in the three months up to June this year – and with whole-hearted Treasury support could deliver yet more.

CBI Director General John Cridland said earlier this month:

Get our energy and climate change policies right, and we can add £20bn extra to our economy and knock £0.8bn off the trade gap, all within the lifetime of this Parliament.

A committee of MPs also attacked the Chancellor earlier this week over energy. Energy and Climate Committee chair Tim Yeo warned:

The Government is in danger of botching its plans to boost clean energy.

The potential from developing clean British energy is enormous and could generate tens of thousands of new jobs.

And coupled with energy efficiency, renewable power could also provide a future energy system we can all afford.

The central reason behind sky-high fuel bills households and businesses have been struggling with has been the soaring price of gas.

According to Ofgem, higher gas prices have been the main driver of increasing energy -– and experts such as the International Energy Agency expect it to rise further still.

Relying on gas – much of which comes from unstable parts of the world – would be a reckless gamble that could leave future generations with a hefty bill.

George Osborne is trying to hold the coalition’s green credentials to ransom – and attempting to boost his standing with the Tory right at the expense of the nation’s finances and the planet.

It’s a profound responsibility to be Energy and Climate Change Secretary at this moment in history.

The urgent need to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of future generations by rapidly decarbonising the way we live is overwhelming.

Standing up for the environment when you’re in opposition is important – but it’s absolutely crucial when you are in power,

Ed Davey and Nick Clegg must stand firm on tackling climate change and fight the Chancellor’s fossil fuel bullying.

• Friends of the Earth is urging Nick Clegg to stand up to the Chancellor on clean British Energy:
• You can find more information on Friends of the Earth’s Clean British Energy campaign here.

‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email voice@libdemvoice.org if you are interested in contributing.

* Craig Bennett is Policy and Campaigns Director of Friends of the Earth

Please note that delegates are responsible for their own travel and accommodation arrangements for the event.  

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Queen’s Speech

Last week, we saw the State Opening of Parliament by the Queen. Her Majesty set out the legislation planned for the second session of Parliament following the formation of the Coalition. The legislation outlined in the speech supports our efforts to reduce the deficit, rebalance the economy and put the country on the path to sustainable growth. It also sets out our commitment to provide families, businesses and communities across the country with the support they need in these tough economic times.

 Banking reform

Back in 2008 the UK was held to ransom by the irresponsible behaviour of some of our banks which led to a multi-billion pound taxpayer-funded bailout to secure people’s bank deposits. Since forming the Coalition Government we have been absolutely committed to ensuring that the country is never put in this situation again and the Banking Reform Bill announced in the Queen’s speech last week will do just this. The Bill will separate retail banking from the more risky investment banking to deliver greater stability for the retail side – which local business and households rely on – and to reduce the risk of taxpayers having to bailout the banks in the future.

 A fairer State Pension

Since fulfilling the Lib Dem election pledge to restore the State Pension triple-lock and end the paltry rises we saw under the previous Government, we have seen the State Pension increased by a record £5.30 per week this April. However, the Coalition Government wants to go further than this and ensure that the State Pension is even more progressive and fairer for low-paid workers and women. This is why we have announced a Pensions Bill which will introduce single tier flat-rate State Pension currently worth around £140. This will particularly benefit women who often have lower pension contributions and it will also guarantee everyone a decent state pension on retirement.

 A boost for businesses

Small and medium-sized businesses are the key to the UK’s economic recovery and the Coalition Government has made clear its commitment to reduce the administrative and tax burden on these businesses to enable them to thrive. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill announced in the Queen’s speech will cut red tape for businesses, saving local companies time and money and enabling them to concentrate on creating the jobs and growth our communities need.

 Green, clean, affordable energy

Rising energy prices here in the Borders are a major concern for local people especially as household budgets are already under pressure. Securing the country’s long-term energy needs and reducing our dependence on the fluctuating supply and price of imported fossil fuels is therefore a top priority for the Government. This is why we announced plans to introduce an Energy Bill which will reform the energy market to secure a clean and affordable energy supply and give customers a better deal. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill will also deliver on a long-standing Lib Dem commitment to set up the UK Green Investment Bank to promote private sector investment in renewable energy and other carbon-saving technologies.

 Groceries Code Adjudicator

I have long campaigned for a supermarket ombudsman to end the unfair practices which have damaged many of our local farm businesses, so it was great to see the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill in the Queen’s speech last week. The Bill will establish a new independent ombudsman to ensure supermarkets treat suppliers fairly. It will prevent large retailers from varying their supply agreements and ensure they pay their suppliers within a reasonable time. This is great news for Borders farmers and I look forward to the Bill becoming law in due course, to ensure our farmers get a fairer deal.

Co-operative Energy emerged yesterday as winner of the much-heralded Big Switch campaign launched by Which? and 38 Degrees.

The collective bargaining scheme aimed to find cheaper energy deals for more than 280,000 people who signed up. But the Co-op – which won the auction by offering the lowest tariff – will offer its deals to 30,000 people on a first come, first served basis.

Nigel Mason of Co-op Energy said: “We have used the auction as a launchpad for our new fixed rate tariff for people who want certainty about the rates they pay. Peopleneed to stay with us for 12 months and that allows us to offer a slightly reduced unit rate for both gas and electricity.”

The winning deals will be £1,048 a year for the average household if they pay by direct debit, and £1,144 a year if they pay by cash or cheque. On average people could save £119 if they pay by direct debit, or £183 if they pay by cash or cheque.

Co-op Energy was launched a year ago as an ethical alternative to the existing Big Six firms. It says it is committed to fair pricing and lower carbon energy, and is wholly owned by its customers, who are given a share of profits every six months.

David Babbs, executive director of 38 Degrees, who worked in partnership with Which? on The Big Switch campaign, said:

It’s great news that Co-operative Energy have won The Big Switch auction. Not just because tens of thousands of people are going to save money, but because it’s proof that people power can stand up to the big gas and electricity companies, and win.

* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary published in print or online.

So the inclusion of an Energy Bill in this week’s Queen’s speech to overhaul the UK’s failing electricity market was long overdue.

The Bill is a once in a generation opportunity to secure our long-term opportunity to make our power system cleaner, more affordable and less reliant on increasingly imported fossil fuels.

Such a move would be popular, too. A recent YouGov poll Friends of the Earth published to mark the launch of our new clean British energy campaign revealed that 85 per cent of the public want David Cameron to force the Big Six energy firms to develop clean British energy from renewable sources – and ditch dirty coal and gas.

But with the future of the nation’s energy system standing at an important crossroads, there are worrying signs that that the Coalition Government is preparing to head off in completely the wrong direction.

Rather than developing a safe and prosperous future offered by investing in renewable energy the Government seems intent on feeding the nation’s fossil fuel addiction.

Sadly, even senior Liberal Democrats who have spoken out for a cleaner future are now proving disappointing in power.

Ed Davey appeared to offer a fresh approach when he replaced Chris Huhne as New Energy Secretary in February, telling reporters:

“We don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past where we have polluted our planet, where our countries have been dependent on fossil fuel imports where the price is high and variable. We don’t want to be dependent on that; we want to make sure we have our own energy production that’s clean and green.”

But within weeks he fired the starting pistol for a new dash for gas that could keep the UK hooked on costly and dirty fossil fuels for decades.

His announcement that there were be no restrictions on new gas-fired power stations pumping out carbon pollution until the middle of the century will leave us trapped in the same system, dominated by the Big Six energy companies – and hostage to expensive gas.

The Government’s independent climate advisor, the Committee on Climate Change, has warned that in order to meet the UK’s legally-binding climate targets the nation’s electricity sector must be almost entirely decarbonised by 2030. Allowing more gas power stations to be built will in itself drive a coach and horses through plans to meet this commitment.

The Energy Bill will have important repercussions for generations to come – it’s crucial we get it right.

This means resisting the dangerous distractions of nuclear power and dirty new energy sources such as shale gas.

Nuclear power is a gamble we simply don’t need to take. As well as producing highly dangerous radioactive waste, it’s never on time, always over budget and relies on huge public subsidies. And even if they can find companies to build them – power firms seem deeply reluctant at the moment – a new reactor takes up to 15 years to build. Time we just don’t have.

And shale gas, releases more greenhouse gases than natural gas, would be a considerable step backwards in the quest for clean energy.

Switching to clean power from our wind, sun and seas – along with cutting energy waste – is our best hope for affordable energy in future.

Between 2000 and 2010 average gas bills increased in real terms by 78 per cent and electricity bills by 30 per cent, driven the rising costs of fossil fuels. Between 2000 and 2010 the price paid by power producers for coal increased in real terms by over 71 per cent and the price they paid for natural gas rose by 90 per cent.

The potential of clean British energy is enormous – offshore energy alone could meet our current electricity needs six times over. Around a fifth of Germany’s electricity already comes from German renewable sources – the UK manages less than half of this. Developing the UK’s clean energy potential would also create tens of thousands of much-needed jobs.

The Liberal Democrats have traditionally championed the environment and their 2010 manifesto was judged by Friends of the Earth to be the greenest of the top three parties – it’s now time for them to show their true colours.

* Andy Atkins is Executive Director at Friends of the Earth.

First came a DECC press release containing proposals that will give rise to a new ‘dash for gas’ in the UK. The announcement means that new gas power stations will not need to be more efficient or less polluting.  It is part of the Treasury’s anti-green agenda which holds the misguided view that green policies are anti-growth and increase costs for businesses and households. This is despite the fact that recent hikes in power bills have been largely due to large increases in wholesale gas prices.

(Incidentally, the release was embargoed until late on a Friday night the weekend before the budget. Hmmm.)

And it gets worse. Today, the Government has announced that 174 environmental regulations are to be scrapped, merged, liberalised or simplified as part of the Government’s Red Tape Challenge.

To give some context, reports began circulating last month that a Cabinet Office drive, led by Oliver Letwin, was seeking to simplify environmental regulations in the same manner as controversial attempts to cut planning regulations from 1,000 to just 52 pages. Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman has seemingly not been part of discussions on the issue, which took place between Letwin and a number of Cabinet Office and DEFRA officials.

Letwin followed that up with a somewhat contradictory public statement which said all environmental regulations had been deemed necessary but could be ‘a great deal simpler’.

This week’s proposed changes, which are being strongly encouraged by the Treasury, are a real threat to Britain’s natural environment. Yet little clarity has been provided on how they will save businesses money. Moreover, in the long term, the costs of environmental damage will ultimately be picked up by the tax payer.

At Spring Conference, Vince Cable made a pledge to “confront the old-fashioned negative thinking which says that all Government needs to do to generate growth is cut worker and environmental protections.”

As a Party, we all need to follow suit and take steps to actively challenge this misguided, out-of-touch Conservative orthodoxy.

This means two things:

Firstly, with energy prices climbing there is an urgent need for a loud, credible and coherent narrative which shows that greater reliance on volatile gas supplies is dangerous for businesses and consumers.

We should apply pressure for a tightening of gas plant emissions levels.  This is in line with the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change, the Government’s own independent advisers. The Committee says that electricity generation should be almost carbon-free by 2030 if it is to remain on course to decarbonise the power sector by 2050, yet the Government’s plans (which would allow unabated gas plants to operate until 2045) deviate from this approach, raising serious questions about how this target will be met.

To help the UK meets its emissions targets, we also need a robust system of ‘capacity payments’, which adequately reward gas plants for not running at full capacity.   Capacity payments, which form part of the Coalition’s Electricity Market Reform Proposals, would ensure that companies have adequate incentives to invest in flexible capacity which can be used to meet peaks in demand.  Robust capacity payments can also support and encourage investment in renewable generation, which tends to be more intermittent and inflexible. Such investment is currently stuttering in the UK.

Secondly, we must continue to advocate policies which harness environmental protection to generate long-term growth rather than destroying it in the hope of making short-term profits.

Making special provisions to grant borrowing powers to the Green Investment Bank would be a fine place to start. Delivering on a long-held commitment to fund four Carbon Capture and Storage projects and doing more to encourage an increase in Combined Heat and Power capacity would help generate jobs and growth while going some way to providing assurances that future fossil fuel generation will be able to proceed in an efficient and cleaner manner.

Policies which create a greater dependence on gas and tear apart environmental protection will do nothing to help the UK economy in its hour of need. At this pressing time, it is vital that we stand up and re-state our environmental credentials in a language that makes economic sense as well as common sense.

* Ben Wood is a member of the Liberal Sustainability Network.

Sir Graham Watson MEP, who is the Chairman of a global network of MPs and MEPs from all mainstream political parties campaigning to increase government investment in renewable energy and electricity supergrids called the Climate Parliament, as well as a Liberal Democrat MEP and President of the ELDR party. 

Commenting on the section on energy infrastructure and renewable energy, Sir Graham said:

“What the European Parliament is saying in this report is that the way to integrate large amounts of renewable energy into our electricity supply is to allow for power exchanges across borders and build an interconnected European supergrid.”

“Each country does not have the variety of renewable energy sources to be able to move to 95% renewables by 2050 on its own, while still guaranteeing reliability of supply. But with an electricity supergrid that spans the continent, we do.”

“I am delighted that the Climate Parliament and other partner organisations have succeeded in making sure this is one of the key priorities on renewables and energy infrastructure.”

The report was authored by Liberal Demcrat MEP Chris Davies. Graham continued:

“We all owe Chris Davies MEP a big thank you for having put this ambitious report together.”

For any readers with an interest in energy policy, the European Liberal Democrats (ELDR) will be debating energy policy at their Congress this Autumn, due to take place in Ireland. For more information, contact the Party’s International Office.

The main argument of Policy Exchange’s report is that there are additional costs to consumers from renewable policies beyond those directly on the bill that the Government has not accounted for. These include the cost of policies funded through taxation and an increase in the cost of products and services resulting from higher energy costs for businesses. They add these estimates to consumer bills to arrive at a total figure for the annual cost of renewable policies per consumer of £400. Throughout the analysis they are strongly critical of the high subsidies awarded to off-shore wind.

The problem, as ever, with future projections like this is that they mean little unless compared with alternative scenarios. This better approach was the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) rationale when they produced the ‘2050 pathways calculator’. The tool enables users to select between different combinations of fuels in the energy mix to find out how much they would cost. DECC have used the tool to claim that the cost of developing green energy will be very similar to the cost of replacing today’s ageing high-carbon power stations.

Policy Exchange base their estimates for the cost of off-shore wind against a projection for the future cost of gas, which they claim would be the cheapest and most likely alternative. Gas undeniably has an important role to play in the short term but the price of it is incredibly uncertain. Indeed, since 2004 the rising cost of gas has been the single biggest driver of increases in consumers’ energy bills, adding £455 by 2010 according to recent estimates by the Climate Change Committee (CCC). The future price of gas could be affected by a number of factors including levels of global demand, the feasibility of using shale gas safely and the scale of any reserves and instability in the Middle East – a trade embargo on Iran or political instability in Saudi Arabia this year could send prices soaring.

Estimates often fail to consider that once renewables infrastructure is in place it does not have an on going fuel requirement, whereas gas power stations do. This was factored into the Climate Change Committee’s estimates that the existing policy support for low carbon generation, including renewables, would add just £110 to bills by 2020 compared to £175 for gas.

Policy Exchange is right to focus on how we can relieve the squeeze from high energy bills on consumers. But we must find ways of doing this that preserve our ability to reduce carbon emissions in the long term. A forthcoming report from IPPR (Platt 2012) will argue that a lack of competitive pressure in energy supply means the market is failing to deliver for consumers. It will argue that enabling new entrants into the market by addressing anti-competitive practices will increase competitive pressure and deliver cheaper bills for all.

With their report Policy Exchange add more fuel to the debates on energy prices but the onus remains on the advocates of gas to show how it can play a role in the 2050 low carbon fuel mix. Supporters of renewables must meanwhile improve their defence. This means placing growth and industrial strategy alongside costs as a key concern for energy policy.

* Reg Platt is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research, specialising in energy and climate change policy.

Like so many other people she worked as a professional in the public sector. Her department was being reorganised and jobs redefined. Professional posts were being regraded downwards, and people were being invited to apply for posts below their qualification and experience.

Understandably, she felt angry; the jobs still needed doing, her skills would become out of date unless she got a new job fairly soon and their household income would suffer a severe cut. She was also angry that so many of the current round of job losses are hitting women harder than men. Her husband is in work, but she doesn’t want to be beholden to him. Our fragile steps towards gender equality are being set back.

And I agree.

Is it really cheaper to have people unemployed and claiming benefits than employed doing something for others in society? And if so, why? I don’t have the whole answer (who does?) but it has got me thinking about it a bit differently.

Look at the big picture; the whole country picture. Money going round from one person to another (salary, tax, buying, selling, etc.) is all staying within the country, so is no net cost overall. When someone needs different clothes or uses materials at work that they don’t at home, or if they use energy to travel to, or when they are at, work which they wouldn’t at home, then this is a real extra cost. And it will need to be affordable. But how, and by whom?

If the energy/materials come from within the UK, then it is still no net cost to the UK. The problem comes because our current challenge is not to worsen our borrowing from outside this economic island. And so much of what we use does come from ‘outside’.

The biggest element of this cost, that I see, coming from outside is energy. Most of our coal, oil and gas – and even some of our electricity is imported. How much energy is ‘embedded’ in all we do, buy and make?

Building materials and clothing, a bus journey and a cinema show, sending an email and posting a letter – they all take energy.

It’s also our use of materials. Paper and fabric, copper and steel, plastics and wood – much of this also comes from abroad. We use it, and too much is binned. We need to deal with it better.

So my suggestion to get us out of our lack of jobs and improve our balance of payments is twofold:

First – protect those jobs that have very little or no external costs – such as many in teaching and caring.

Second – invest in jobs that result in greater UK independence for materials and energy, such as renewable energy and recycling.

Would it work? What do you think?

And if it isn’t what the government is doing, is there an even bigger picture that they are working within? If so, what is it?

*Lucy Care is a former councillor and PPC in Derby and is a current member of the Federal Policy and Conference Committees

If Britain is to benefit from a controversial drilling technique to extract gas from the ground “we must be able to guarantee safety at every stage”, a Liberal Democrat MP has said. Dr John Pugh (Southport) said without appropriate and effective monitoring of the process, public support would not be achieved.

Fracking, which involves hydraulic fracturing of shale rock using high pressure liquid, led to the tremors which hit Lancashire earlier this year. Environmental campaigners and local residents have called for an immediate halt to the exploration work, which could lead to vast untapped gas reserves. Energy firm Cuadrilla, which is conducting the explorations, said there was no threat to people or property and pledged to implement an early detection system.

Speaking during a Westminster Hall debate on the “Fifth Report of the Energy and Climate Change Committee: Shale Gas”, Dr Pugh spoke of the risks of unknown factors cropping up in pressing ahead with any gas extraction.

Here’s an excerpt from Dr Pugh’s speech:

There is a rational view of all these things, which goes something like this: if we are to have any conventional extraction, unconventional extraction or even large-scale development, we should do everything reasonable and necessary to ensure that it is as risk free as it can be, but we cannot eliminate risks that we cannot anticipate. There is, therefore, a strong case—particularly where there is genuine public concern—for taking a proactive approach towards monitoring any shale gas extraction process. Such an approach would mean having an open, transparent process, with frequent monitoring, genuinely hard and enforceable regulations and a body that is resourced to enforce those regulations. The Committee’s report makes it clear that the Environment Agency will have more work to do if shale gas takes off in the UK, and it will need to be resourced appropriately, subject to current Government restraints. Importantly, we also need to be assured that whoever promotes large-scale developments has the public indemnity to act if something goes wrong, and that includes dealing with the unknown unknowns. They should also be in a position to clear up. … the Committee is making a plea for a robust regime to govern what is a new process for many people in the UK. In many of its technological aspects, fracking or shale gas exploitation is not that new, but it is certainly a new concern for many people in my part of the world.

My concern about the Committee’s report relates not to the report itself, but to the fact that the Government’s responses to some of our clear-cut recommendations allow a little more wriggle room than I am comfortable with. There are too many “mays” and “cans”, too many expectations and too many statements to the effect that things might be done, could be done or, optimally, would be done, but there is no assurance that they always will be done. If we are to get any benefit from shale gas in the UK, we must be able to guarantee safety at every stage. Therefore we must have appropriate and effective monitoring and enforcement. Without those things, there will not be public support for shale gas, and there will be much anxiety about it, and we will have to accept that we have an asset perhaps to bequeath but not necessarily to use. The ball is in the Government’s court. If they and the agencies that want to exploit shale gas can show to all and sundry that they will hold the various companies concerned to the fire, until they agree to what is appropriate, safe and satisfactory and what passes all reasonable scientific tests, there may be an answer in shale gas for British energy supplies. If not, the issue will be coupled to an unnecessary degree of anxiety.