Search Results

Given the horrific events, not just on the day of the Hillsborough disaster, but also during subsequent events over many years, and the failure of anyone to be held accountable for the disaster, you may have expected swift measures to be put in place to ensure that there could never again be a repeat of the state inflicted pain and suffering endured by the families of the 97 victims. However, thirty-three years on from the disaster, and five years on from when a commitment to a Public Advocate Bill was included in the 2017 Tory manifesto, it seems we are no nearer to having these protections in place. In March 2017 Andy Burnham, then MP for Leigh, sponsored a ‘Public Authority (Accountability) Bill’. This Private Members’ Bill set out measures to place a legal requirement on public institutions, public servants and officials and those carrying out functions on their behalf, to act in the public interest and with candour and frankness. Further, it would place a legal duty on them to assist official inquiries and investigations. In addition, it proposed how funding would be provided for victims and their relatives during court and inquiry proceedings. The Bill was due to have its 2nd reading on the 12th May 2017, but as a snap General Election was called Parliament was dissolved and the Bill fell. The 2017 Public Authority (Accountability) Bill. Click on the above to read the speech given by Andy Burnham when presenting the Bill A commitment to an independent Public Advocate for the victims and families of those involved in disasters was included in the 2017 Conservative manifesto, although no action was taken on this and it made no appearance in their 2019 manifesto. The commitment to an independent public advocate in the 2017 Conservative manifesto In 2016 Teresa May, then Home Secretary, commissioned Bishop James Jones to produce a report on the experience of the Hillsborough families so that their perspective would not be lost and lessons could be learned to avoid a repeat of their experience at the hands of state. This report ‘The patronising disposition of unaccountable power’ was published in 2017. The report made 25 points of learning. These are shown in chapter 5 of the report. Bishop James has highlighted 3 points of learning in particular that there should be: a charter for families bereaved through public tragedy ‘proper participation’ of bereaved families at inquests a duty of candour which should require police officers – serving or retired – to cooperate fully with investigations undertaken by the Independent Police Complaints Commission or its successor body At the time of publication, 1st November 2017, Home Secretary Amber Rudd said: I am grateful to Bishop James Jones for undertaking this important piece of work. His thoughtful and considered report raises important points. The government will now carefully study the 25 points of learning and we will provide a full response in due course. Almost five years on and it seems we are no nearer to a ‘full response’. In January I wrote to Richard Fuller MP setting out the urgent need for a ‘Hillsborough Law’ and asking for his support for it. You can read the letter, and his response in full here: http://julianvaughan.blog/2022/01/24/an-open-letter-on-the-need-for-a-hillsborough-law/ Following this response and in light of multiple objections being made to Maria Eagle’s ‘Public Advocate’ Private Members’ Bill – objected to eight times so far in the House of Commons, I raised the issue again in person with Richard Fuller and was subsequently forwarded the response that he received from the Justice Minister, Kit Malthouse MP. The full response is set out below: Kim Malthouse MP letter to Richard Fuller MP 12th May 2022 The letter above raises a number of issues, but it is simply not good enough that five years on from a Home Secretary promising a ‘full response’ – and 33 years on from the disaster, we still have government ministers saying “we hope to be in a position to conduct that engagement (with the Hillsborough families) and publish a full response soon”. How slowly the wheels of justice turn for the ordinary people of the UK. The letter also talks about the potential availability of legal aid, which has been slashed since the Conservatives came to power in 2010. It also indicates that the governent may be rowing back on previous commitments to an Independent Public Advocate. We must do better than this. Today in the #QueensSpeech debate, I asked for #HillsboroughLawNow and my Public Advocate Bill to be enacted. Five years since Bishop James Report on lessons to be learned, where is Govt response? pic.twitter.com/vp9fGp78G5 — Maria Eagle MP (@meaglemp) May 17, 2022 Maria Eagle MP sets out the need for a Hillsborough Law and Public Advocate Bill The Hillsborough disaster may be a distant memory for many. However, the inequality of access to justice and the imbalance of power between the state and the people that it revealed is still present today. That the 97 victims and their families never received the justice they deserved will forever be a stain on the reputation of our legal and political systems that continue to fail the most vulnerable in our society. A Hillsborough Law is not only vital to go some way to redressing this imbalance, but would also be a fitting tribute to the remarkable dignity and determination of the Hillsborough families who have endured so much. I urge you to contact your MP and ask them to support the Hillsborough Law. Julian Vaughan May 2022 Twitter: @julian_vaughan_ Further reading: ‘The patronising disposition of unaccountable power’ A report to ensure the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is not repeated – The right Reverend James Jones https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/656130/6_3860_HO_Hillsborough_Report_2017_FINAL_updated.pdf Hillsborough – finally a catalyst for change? http://julianvaughan.blog/2022/01/14/hillsborough-finally-a-catalyst-for-change/ #Hillsborough #HillsboroughLaw #Politics #UKlegalsystem

This morning representatives from Network Rail, Govia Thameslink Railway, Central Bedfordshire Council, Biggleswade Town Council, Bedfordshire Rail Access Network and Richard Fuller MP met to discuss the latest progress on step-free access at Biggleswade station. We also discussed the progress of the Transport Hub, which when completed will provide a seamless link between bus and rail services, as well as the provision of much needed toilet facilities at the station. Just prior to the meeting there was a short opening ceremony for the new cycle parking facilities at the station. There are facilities to store around 128 bikes and there is full CCTV coverage of the area. The new cycle hub at Biggleswade station After the opening ceremony, we then moved to the Town Hall offices to discuss the main business of the day which was step-free access at the station, as well as receiving an update on the transport hub. Network Rail said they were confident that the scheme would remain affordable, although there are external pressures of soaring steel prices and increased labour costs. There are still a number of hoops to jump through, including a review of where potential savings may be made. Network Rail has to go through an internal Investment Authority application for construction as well as a station change review with GTR. However, if all goes well then the contract should be signed by July 2022 and work will begin on site in October 2022. The current target for the lifts to enter into service at Biggleswade station is June 2023. The Bedfordshire Rail Access Network team does have some concerns that there may be some last-minute design changes through what is termed as ‘value engineering’ – basically cost-cutting. This potentially carries the risk of reducing the ease of accessibility of the station, even if the changes meet current guidance. We asked that we are notified of ANY changes to the design, which they have agreed to do. The bus interchange is on course to be completed and in use by April 2023. A Traffic Regulation Order relating to the changes needed as a result of the bus interchange is going before the relevant council committee on the 24th May 2022. This will include some parking changes, as well as the construction of a new zebra crossing on Station Road. Funding has been agreed for toilets to be located on the site of the old bike rack area (to the right of the taxi office as you look at the station). This will include an accessible toilet, as well as a male and female toilet. The date for completion of this project has yet to be confirmed, but is due to be cfinished no later than the end of this financial year, April 2023. Members of the Bedfordshire Rail Access Network (BRAN) team outside Biggleswade Town Council offices. Unfortunately, especially as it will soon become law, there was no funding available for a ‘changing places’ facility. There were also discussions about the provision of toilets on the platforms. However, as the problem is believed to be a damaged pipe underneath the rail tracks we were advised that this would be a considerable expense to remedy. Overall, it was good to hear that everything is on track and no dates have slipped. However, we will continue to keep a close eye on all the various projects around the station until completion The cycle and bus hubs are very welcome additions to what will become a vital transport interchange for Biggleswade and the surrounding areas. However, to get people out of their cars and onto their bikes, safe cycle routes to the station both within Biggleswade and between surrounding villages will need to be created. There is little sign yet that there is any ambition to create these dedicated cycle routes, where cyclists are separated from road traffic, in our area. Further, bus services across the area remain patchy, with few services running in the evenings and at weekends. The proposed ‘Enhanced Partnership’ between Central Bedfordshire Council and bus companies must address these gaps and provide a reliable service to encourage us to ditch the car. This is just a short update from the meeting. If you have any questions please feel free to email us at: bedsrailaccessnetwork@gmail.com or follow our Facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/bedsrailaccessnow Julian Vaughan 9th May 2022 #stepfreeaccess #accessibility #Bedfordshire #publictransport #railways #Transport

The corrosive fallout from the EU referendum, the shock of the Covid-19 pandemic and the horror of the ongoing war in Ukraine have been deeply unsettling and have led many to adopt a somewhat fatalistic approach to the future. It seems that since the financial crash of 2008, UK politics has never reverted back to an even keel. However, at a time when we need effective government most, we are instead being led by a Prime Minister lacking any moral authority to govern and the basic competence to face the looming challenges ahead. Johnson’s government, shorn of any dissenting voices, presents a clear threat to our democracy – and at the same time reveals its inherent weakness. Labour now consistently lead in opinion polls, although they would still fall short of a majority based on current numbers. Keir Starmer recently said that “people don’t want a revolution.” This may indeed be true, it is not very British after all. However, I believe that unless we make fundamental changes to how we are governed, how power is held to account and how we protect the most vulnerable in our society, quite apart from not having a vision that will inspire enough people to succeed at the ballot box, we face the prospect of the continuation of a deeply unequal society. Labour may be relying on the Conservatives to implode, and let’s be honest they are doing a pretty good job of it so far. However, treading too cautiously and trying to please everyone does have its risks as voters, I would suggest especially in the ‘red wall’ seats Labour are so keen to win back, will sniff out any lack of conviction. As one of my ‘swing voter’ friends posted recently, Labour should aim to win on merit, not by default. I voted for Starmer in the leadership election, so have no factionalist axe to grind here, but if we set out to be relatively passive bystanders in the expectation that the current government will destroy itself, we may well end up empty-handed. As Alistair Campbell said of the Blair years, it is vital to seize the initiative and once you have it, never let it go. "The public have made up their mind, they don't believe a word the prime minister says," Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer says "For all those unfamiliar with the prime minister's career, this isn't some fixable glitch in the system… it's what he does"https://t.co/hIx6lWqcJo pic.twitter.com/piZYLFfvpS — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) April 19, 2022 Starmer has done a pretty good job of ripping Johnson to shreds at the despatch box, but there is a world of difference between success in the Westminster bubble and electoral success across the UK. The electorate is likely to have much to vote against, but they must have something to vote for. The Tories have no qualms about increasing inequality and trashing our democracy and indeed our reputation around the world. Abhorrent as many of their policies are, they do enact them with conviction. Tinkering around the edges, presenting a form of ‘Tory lite’ is unlikely to cut it with the electorate, and even if it does result in success at the ballot box, will do little to alleviate the struggles of the most vulnerable in our society. So if not quite a revolution, what could these fundamental changes look like? A move to a fairer voting system. For many, the walk to the polling station is a forlorn and pointless ritual. The current ‘first past the post system’ is inherently unfair and can create, like in the case of the current government, a huge majority on a minority of votes cast. At each General Election, a small number of ‘swing seats’ decide who governs the UK, while most seats never change hands. A proportional system of voting would mean that each vote has an equal value. Everyone would have an incentive to vote as everyone’s vote would count. However, a fairer voting system is just the start of the road toward the public becoming more engaged in the political process. We need to decentralise power from Westminster and place it back into our local town halls across the country. The current political patronage seen in the House of Lords must end and be replaced by an elected chamber that represents all regions and communities across the United Kingdom. The power exerted by the current government, and the lack of effective checks and balances to that power, have highlighted the weakness of our democracy when we are governed by those lacking any moral compass. It is vital that we create a written constitution to replace the current conventions and reliance on personal integrity. A fairer and simpler tax system where those with the broadest shoulders pay a greater share of their income to support a just society. It’s just not right that a quarter of all wealth in the UK is held by the richest 1% 1. This is not about envy, it is about basic fairness. A media held to account by a genuinely robust and independent regulator and an end to the often cosy if transactional relationship between the state and the oligarchs who control the vast majority of our national and local print and online output. Government should respect a free media, rather than fear the consequences of not playing to their tune. Equal access to the law. Cuts to legal aid and threats to the availability of judicial review risk access to the law becoming available only to those with the deepest pockets. The years of pain endured by the families of those killed at Hillsborough is a stark example of how justice is denied to working-class people. Promote a pro ‘ethical business’ approach. We shouldn’t resent profits, but the tragedy of Grenfell revealed what weak government regulation, combined with the pursuit of profit above all other considerations can result in. I will concede that the above may seem somewhat academic and remote from the daily grind of many, but until we put in place the checks and balances of an effective democracy, there will always be a tendency for governments to revert to promoting the interests of corporations and individuals with the deepest pockets. Why is it always the case that when ‘tough choices’ have to be made, it is always the most vulnerable in our society that suffer, not the corporate fat cats? I would suggest that the constant lobbying by corporations and the lack of working-class representation in the Houses of Parliament results in our politicians’ heads being turned by those who already have a voice at the expense of those who have no voice at all. Labour has been criticised by some for their “on your side” and “security, prosperity and respect” slogans and of course any political tag lines are meaningless unless backed up by effective policy. However, much like a football team needs to have an effective spine to achieve success, policies based around a spine of personal, household and job security and being treated with dignity in all aspects of life, are a strong grounding for a successful political campaign. We are not quite there yet and it is the nuts and bolts of these policy offerings that must be fleshed out sooner rather than later. Labour must also decide whose side they are on and be cautious about being seen to be backing big business over the needs of working people. How refreshing it would be to have policies based around the values of empathy and compassion, rather than the greed and division sown by the current government. My contract with the British public is based on security, prosperity and respect. Security – because everyone has the right to feel safe in their own community. Prosperity – because everyone should have the opportunity to thrive. Respect – because everyone should be valued. pic.twitter.com/Bu6xBlEoNN — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) February 16, 2022 It is pretty clear that the shambles of the current government has given the electorate plenty of reasons not to vote for them. I am less sure that we have yet given the electorate enough to vote for us. If Labour tries to carefully toe a line which they believe won’t upset anyone, they run the risk of not pleasing anyone. I understand, if not totally agree with the move away from the policies of the Corbyn era, but Labour must be wary of oversteer, a drift too far into the centre ground . We face huge challenges ahead, such as the looming climate emergency and the impact of automation across our workplaces. The differing approaches to both of these issues are likely to be key battlegrounds in UK politics over the coming decade and beyond. They will require fundamental changes to how we go about our lives. They will both require high levels of government intervention and bold actions. Let’s inspire people now, let’s be bold. The Tories have trashed the United Kingdom’s reputation around the world. Let’s set out a vision for a Britain we can be proud of, with the BBC and the NHS at its heart. Let’s judge our success by how well we protect the most vulnerable in our society, rather than the interests of a privileged few. That will be a United Kingdom we can all be proud of. Julian Vaughan April 2022 Further reading The Grenfell Tower Fire: a crime caused by profit and deregulation. https://www.fbu.org.uk/publications/grenfell-tower-fire-crime-caused-profit-and-deregulation Labour for Electoral Reform: voting systems explained. https://labourforelectoralreform.org.uk/resources/ Politics for the Many: the trade union case for political reform. https://politicsforthemany.co.uk/the-trade-union-case-for-political-reform/ The Equality Trust: the scale of economic inequality in the UK. https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk Clive Lewis manifesto: transform to win. https://www.cliveforleader.com/manifesto/ Media Reform Coalition: who owns the UK media? https://www.mediareform.org.uk/media-ownership/who-owns-the-uk-media House of Commons Library: is the criminal justice system fir for purpose? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/is-the-criminal-justice-system-fit-for-purpose/ Resolution Foundation: the living standards outlook 2022. https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/the-living-standards-outlook-2022/ Hillsborough Law will level the scales of justice: Steve Rotheram. https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/hillsborough-law-will-right-longterm-structural-injustices-and-ensure-honesty-in-public-inquiries #UKpolitics #proportionalrepresentation #labourparty #SocialJustice #Politics

The UK’s political system has some obvious democratic failings, perhaps the most prominent being the ‘first past the post’ voting system, which has enabled our current Government to rule as an ‘elective dictatorship’ on a minority of votes cast. However, there is less obvious inequality of representation created by the lack of working-class voices in Parliament. This lack of representation means that when for example, changes to benefits or employment law are discussed, there is little input from those with ‘lived experience’ of the potential detrimental impact of those changes. As I have mentioned in earlier posts, it has been over fifty years since a train driver was elected to the House of Commons, but it was Angela Rayner, a former care worker, who finally inspired me to write this blog on the need for a broad cross-section of experience within Parliament. The Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, not for the first time, created some controversy due to her remarks during a podcast concerning how we should deal with terrorists and how the police should behave with criminals. In her defence, Angela did point out prior to making these comments that they were not likely to be popular within her own Party, and they followed a discussion on how, while she was regarded as being to the ‘left’ of the Labour Party, she had a variety of views across the spectrum of politics. Wouldn’t we prefer our politicians to be candid, rather than just tell us what they think we may want to hear? While predictable, it was a shame it was these comments (which took up a couple of minutes of a 60+ minute interview) that received all the publicity. The rest of the interview was in my view one of the most inspirational and frank political interviews I have ever heard – and one that should be compulsory listening for anyone, but particularly those from a working-class background, who aspire to enter politics. The podcast is worth a blog all on its own. There was a refreshing absence of entitlement and a real sense of self-doubt, co-existing with assertive confidence when dealing with other people’s problems. As someone with ‘imposter syndrome’ I recognise how this self-doubt and confidence can exist together. She discusses being a ‘feral street kid’, out clubbing at 14 and pregnant at 16. Angela also discusses poverty, but in terms of poverty of love rather than a poverty of money, and about how she had to learn how to receive hugs. As someone who underwent childhood trauma, you can read about it here, I can relate in some ways to her experiences and how they can shape your future. Politically, it was refreshing to hear a politician discuss the importance of needing to inspire people rather than berate them, to be bold rather than playing it safe, and to speak from the heart rather than telling people what you think they may want to hear. Matt Forde interview with Angela Rayner on 26th January 2022. Click on the above to listen to the podcast How many working-class MPs are there? Well, there isn’t a questionnaire handed around to MPs with a tick box for ‘working class’ so it is a little difficult to get an accurate figure. Further, this is before we get on to the question of what does ‘working class’ mean? There are a number of different definitions of class based on income, frequency of pay, assets, profession, education, lifestyle, housing and the presence of, or a lack of, a safety net in both monetary and social connection terms. The poorest in society, who lack the social connections to provide support when things go wrong, or the financial security to get through a bad patch, are the most vulnerable to spending cuts across all sectors of government. I believe it is this section of society that needs to have better representation in Parliament. Labour Party Cartoon (JF Horrabin) used during the 1929 General Election demonstrating the precarious nature of those people on the lowest incomes during austerity So what is the current situation? The excellent House of Commons Library recently published a research briefing providing data on the social background of Members of Parliament between 1979-2019. There is a mine of information contained in the report. I have included the relevant highlights below: At the 2019 General Election, 44% of Conservative MPs had attended fee-paying schools, compared to 19% of Labour MPs and 38% of Liberal Democrat MPs. 29% of all MPs had attended fee-paying schools, compared to fee-paying schools educating 6.5% of the UK school children population. 22% of MPs elected at the 2019 General Election had attended either Oxford or Cambridge. At the 2015 General Election, 31% of MPs were ‘Professionals (Barristers, Solicitors, Civil Service, Teachers, etc.) 31% were from business. Just 3% were manual workers. None of the newly elected intake at the 2019 General Election were manual workers before being elected. Of course, it would be inaccurate to say that only those MPs from manual occupations are working class. However, it is clear that there has been an increase in what could be termed as professional or ‘careerist’ politicians who have never undertaken work roles outside of politics. The Bullingdon Club ‘Class of 87’ featuring David Cameron and Boris Johnson The world of politics and politicians already seems remote from the everyday lives of ordinary working people. A lack of MPs from a working-class background risks alienating the very people who have the most to lose from political decisions made on their behalf, by people who do not understand the lives they live. As Ed Miliband, then leader of the opposition put so well in Prime Minister’s Questions in October 2013: Many people face a choice this winter between heating and eating. These are the ordinary people of this country whom this Prime Minister will never meet and whose lives they will never understand. Ed Miliband to David Cameron PMQs 23rd October 2013 As Angela Rayner said in a ‘New Statesman’ interview in 2017 about the trend towards fewer MPs from working-class backgrounds: “We’ll become further and further removed from the people we are there to represent” adding “A Parliament full of solicitors and barristers will appear an exclusive club”. If we do not have MPs who have experienced the everyday strains and stresses of life on the breadline it is hardly surprising that there may be an absence of policies that support those that do. So why is it so important to have the working class represented in our Parliament? Well, a Parliament stacked with people from the business world is far more likely to have connections with and be sympathetic to the needs of business over those of the people. Perhaps the most telling example of this is how politicians accepted the deregulation of building standards and fire safety as they were seen as “a burden to business”. You can read about how standards were relaxed and how lessons failed to be learned in the Fire Brigades Union’s excellent booklet ‘The Grenfell Tower fire: a crime caused by profit and deregulation’. A Parliament of MPs who has never experienced the relentless and grinding existence of poverty is likely to be more comfortable passing laws that cut benefits and remove the safety net for the most vulnerable in our society. How do we fix the problem and enable a Parliament that is representative of every part of our society? I believe we need to make politics far more accessible, both in terms of clearly setting out how political decisions impact virtually every aspect of our lives and by removing the barriers faced by potential candidates who don’t have the means to financially sustain themselves during an election campaign. We can achieve the former by reaching out into our communities with a mixture of education and grassroots campaigning. We can achieve the latter by providing direct financial support to candidates from working class backgrounds. On a personal level, when standing as a Labour candidate in the 2017 and 2019 snap General Elections I was extremely fortunate to have terms and conditions of employment that permitted a mixture of paid and unpaid leave, and a financial situation that could take a financial loss, as well as a union that was generous in its financial support towards our campaign. The vast majority of candidates do not have any of the benefits and therefore there is no possibility of ever becoming a candidate. This built in bias against working-class candidates must change. As Labour MP for Coventry North West Taiwo Owatemi says in the wide ranging ‘Hearts and Minds – Winning the working-class vote’ published in April 2021 “The Labour party should continue to recruit candidates from diverse vocational backgrounds who can best relate to the everyday issues their constituents face”. I would argue that the Labour Party needs to do more than we are currently doing and put in place a plan to ensure we have far greater working-class representation among our candidates. I believe that well supported CLPs, seen as community hubs that reach out to support the most vulnerable in our society, rather than be seen as talking shops, will encourage a far wider level of participation in politics from all walks of life. As more working-class people enter politics they will act as role models to encourage further involvement and increase trust in our politicians. Increased working-class representation in Parliament will not fix all our problems in politics. We need a complete rebalance of power between the state, the police, the print media and the people, which I have covered in a previous blog here. We also need a fairer voting system and a more consensual approach to politics, to enable us to deal with pressing issues such as climate change that require a long term approach. However, it will be a good start and anything is possible if we put our minds to it. Julian Vaughan March 2022 Twitter @juliman66 Further reading: Elitist Britain 2019 – The educational backgrounds of Britain’s leading people Hearts and Minds – Winning the working class vote How political parties lost the working class – Ashley Cowburn #UKpolitics #workingclass #labourparty #Politics #representation

UK homes account for around 15% of our CO2 emissions. A combination of improved energy efficiency and on-site renewable energy would reduce this, as was set out in the zero carbon homes plan, abandoned in 2016. In 1998 a reduced 5% VAT rate was introduced for energy-saving materials such as solar panels, but this didn’t include battery storage unless installed at the same time as solar panels. You can read more about the timeline of VAT on solar panels from the excellent resource that is the House of Commons Library here: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8602/ In 2015 the European Court of Justice ruled the UK had infringed rules on the application of VAT and eventually in 2019 (rather odd timing in light of our imminent departure from EU) the government introduced legislation restricting the application of the reduced VAT rate on energy-saving materials to those aged 60+ and/or in receipt of certain benefits, or when the cost of materials does not exceed 60% of the total cost of installation. However, in combined solar panel/battery storage installations the cost of materials is likely to exceed the 60% margin on virtually every occasion. This means that the full 20% VAT rate will be applied, a clear disincentive for homeowners wanting to install renewable energy solutions. Why is this a problem? Smart batteries linked to solar panels act like ‘low carbon’ mini power stations and can export energy back to the grid during peak demand. They reduce both domestic energy demand and reliance on fossil fuel sources. Further, they smooth out demand spikes and can be used to import and store electricity during low demand periods. In June 2019 Treasury Minister Jesse Norman stated “It will be perfectly possible and not difficult for a future government to reverse the change by statutory instrument, in the usual way, after we leave the EU”. Yet to date, this reversal has yet to happen. in March 2021 the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee released a report which discusses reducing or abolishing the VAT on energy saving materials. You can read the report in full here: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/5171/documents/52521/default/ In the report, they discuss the issues around the rate of VAT on renewable energy products and installations and make (on page 45) the below recommendation in paragraph 132. Extract from the Environmental Audit Committee report: Energy Efficiency of Existing Homes However, the response from the Treasury talks about how any reduction in the VAT on domestic renewable energy would impact other areas of the economy. I have previously written about the issues around the level of VAT on domestic renewable energy which you can read here: http://julianvaughan.blog/2021/10/09/its-time-to-slash-the-vat-on-domestic-solar-energy/ I raised the government’s refusal to reduce the VAT on solar panels and battery storage with my MP Richard Fuller and he tabled a written question on the issue. With Richard Fuller MP in October 2019 discussing VAT on solar panels However, the response received in December 2021 mirrored that of the responses from the Treasury contained in the Environmental Audit Committee’s report above. Written Answer from Lucy Frazer MP on behalf of the Treasury However, as you can see the answer to the written question from Richard Fuller MP indicates that the Treasury are standing firm on their refusal to remove, or even reduce, the VAT on domestic renewable energy installations. I would suggest that the long-term results from a lack of action on CO2 emission reduction will have a far greater impact on public finances than would a reduction in VAT on domestic renewable energy installations. Further, the government’s VAT take is likely to be significantly increased by receipts from the sharp rise in the energy price cap which is set out in the table below. This sharp increase in VAT intake, from £61 up to £94 per customer, surely outweighs any loss in revenue from abolishing VAT on domestic renewable energy. Table from the Default Tariff Cap Level letter. You can read the full letter from this link: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/default-tariff-cap-level-1-april-2022-30-september-2022 We really shouldn’t be sweating over the easy stuff. It’s bizarre that the Treasury is happy to cut the duty on domestic air travel and freeze the duty on petrol and diesel, but refuses to slash the VAT on renewable energy production. We have to do better than this if we are serious about achieving net-zero carbon. Julian Vaughan 10th February 2022 Follow on Twitter at: @juliman66 Follow on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/jpvaughan66 Follow on Instagram at: https://www.instagram.com/jvaughan_photos/ Email at: vaughan4nebeds@gmail.com #UKpolitics #VAT #renewableenergy #solarpanels #Politics

Below is an open letter sent to my North East Bedfordshire MP Richard Fuller, setting out why a Hillsborough Law is urgently needed and calling for his support for it. Dear Richard The tragedy of Hillsborough goes far beyond the horrific events that took place on 15th April 1989. The Liverpool supporters suffered a double injustice. The injustice of the appalling events and the failure of the state to protect their loved ones as well as the denigration of the deceased in the false narrative created that they were somehow at fault for their own deaths. This false narrative created by the police – the very people responsible for the protection of the fans attending Hillsborough that day – not only caused unbearable and prolonged pain for the families of the Hillsborough victims and indeed the people of Liverpool, but was also all too readily accepted by politicians from both sides of the House of Commons. After many years, we now know the truth about Hillsborough. However, the lack of justice and accountability for the 97 unlawful deaths that occurred due to the events of 33 years ago will always be a shameful chapter in UK political and legal history. Lamentably, the lack of empathy and compassion displayed by the state in the aftermath of the Hillsborough tragedy has been repeated in the treatment of the Windrush families and the residents of Grenfell Tower. This culture of, at best casual indifference, at worst structural racism across government, the police and our print media must change if we are to create a society where the well-being and interests of ordinary people are prioritised over the reputations of public bodies and corporate profits. You may be aware of the ongoing campaign for a ‘Hillsborough Law’ which seeks to level up the mismatch between the unlimited legal representation afforded to public bodies compared to the limited representation available to families bereaved by incidents involving public bodies. A ‘Hillsborough Law’ would bring in a number of measures including the following: A Public Advocate to act for families of the deceased after major incidents. Giving bereaved families better access to money for legal representation at inquests -the measure would allow families, who often find themselves facing expensive QCs, to afford lawyers themselves – creating an equal playing field. Put in place a duty of candour for all police officers and public officials which means they must be open and honest when something goes wrong. A Charter for families bereaved through public tragedy which would be binding on all public bodies. A requirement that evidence and findings of major inquests must be taken fully into account at any subsequent criminal trials. Clarification in law that major inquiries commissioned by government or other official bodies constitute “courses of public justice”. A requirement that any criminal trials following a major inquest take place in a court with relevant expertise and status, rather than a crown court. There is now cross-party support for the introduction of a ‘Hillsborough Law’ and I would be grateful if you would consider both making public your support for it and formally raising the issue in Parliament. While it will never bring justice for the victims of Hillsborough, I hope you will agree that it will be a fitting tribute, both to the victims and to the dignity and determination of the Hillsborough families who have endured so much. They are, as Andy Burnham said in the House of Commons in 2016, the best of us. I look forward to hearing from you on this matter. Please regard this letter as an open letter, although of course, the detail of your reply will remain private unless you indicate otherwise. Below is a link to the 2017 report by the Right Reverend James Jones, which goes into more detail about why a Hillsborough Law is needed and recommendations on what the law should contain. I have also provided a link to the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report which gives an extensive background into the disaster itself and subsequent events. Kind regards Julian Vaughan 24th January 2022 The response from Richard Fuller MP below, was received on the 28th February. Dear Julian, Thank you for your email. I am sorry that it has not been possible for me to respond before now. As you rightly say, the tragedy of Hillsborough goes far beyond the horrific events that took place on 15th April 1989. The events were an exceptional tragedy for the families affected, the local community that still bears the scars of what happened, and the country. The lessons of the Hillsborough disaster must be learned and consistently applied so that something similar can never be allowed to happen again. There have been a number of recent developments with Mr Justice William Davis’ court ruling last year, the Law Commission report on misconduct in public office and the outcome of the consultation on the possible creation of an Independent Public Advocate (IPA). In relation to the court ruling, Mr Justice William Davis ruled in May 2021 there was no legal case for Mr Denton, Mr Foster and Mr Metcalf to answer as the statements involved had been prepared for the public inquiry chaired by Lord Taylor in 1990. As this was not a statutory inquiry and therefore was not considered a court of law, there was not a course of public justice that could be perverted. In 2018, the Government consulted on proposals to establish an IPA, and the consultation looked at a range of issues about how best to support those bereaved following a public disaster. I welcome the fact that the Government has confirmed that it is considering the IPA. Ministers have stressed that there are details that need careful consideration. Issues such as, how exactly an IPA should interact with investigatory bodies, how to avoid duplication, whether the IPA should be involved only where fatalities occur and whether it ought to have a wider remit. Maria Eagle’s Public Advocate Bill is also an important contribution to the debate; along with Bishop James Jones’ 2017 report on the Hillsborough families’ experiences, to which the Government will respond soon. It is clear from responses to recent Written Parliamentary Questions that the above issues are still under review. I understand the Law Commission’s recommendations are under active consideration and a Government response will be issued as soon as practicable. I am reassured that the Ministry of Justice has sought views from a wide spectrum of Government departments that have an interest in the Report’s outcomes in order to effectively consider the recommendations and issue a response. There have been a number of significant steps in the last few years with the IPA consultation, the Law Commission report and the Bishop James Jones’ report which have all been considering a range of different but related issues. I appreciate the concerns that there has not yet been an announcement on these issues but, as the minister indicated in a recent response, the Government is looking thoroughly at all of these issues before deciding on the next steps. I have written to the Justice Minister to seek an update on these issues and I will share the response with you, when received. Thank you for contacting me. Sincerely, Richard Richard Fuller MP Member of Parliament for North East Bedfordshire ‘The patronising disposition of unaccountable power’ A report to ensure the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is not repeated – The Right Reverend James Jones https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/656130/6_3860_HO_Hillsborough_Report_2017_FINAL_updated.pdf Hillsborough: The Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel – September 2012 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229038/0581.pdf #JFT97 #Hillsborough #HillsboroughLaw #UKpolitics

The sheer scale of the tragedy of Hillsborough is difficult to comprehend, cutting across so many aspects of the relationship between the people and the state. It starkly set out how justice is not applied equally across our society and how agencies of the state persistently close rank and prioritise reputational protection over the safety and well-being of the people that they serve. This blog discusses whether the Hillsborough disaster has been a catalyst for real change in our society, real change among the state agencies who are tasked to protect us, and whether it has prompted a change in attitude among those who are elected to govern us. Football, and the culture around it, have changed significantly since 1989. The advent of the ‘Premier League’ in 1992, along with the stadium improvements that followed on from the disaster, mean that a repeat of a similar incident at a sports stadium is very unlikely. However, Hillsborough was no accident, although disgracefully it took an agonising 27 years for the deaths of the 961 Liverpool fans to be legally recognised as being ‘unlawfully killed’ at the conclusion of the second set of inquests held between 2014 and 2016 in Warrington. 1Sean Devine who passed away on 27th July 2021, suffered life changing injuries at Hillsborough and a coroner ruled that he had been unlawfully killed and was the disaster’s 97th fatality. Anyone who went to watch football in the late 1980s is likely to have memories of being treated like second class citizens by police, whose attitude was at best indifferent and at worst hostile to football fans. However, I am not suggesting that the South Yorkshire Police deliberately set out to inflict injury and death. The concept of ‘othering‘ is a complex phenomenon, but in the case of Hillsborough, I believe it led to the dehumanisation of the football fans that attended the FA Cup semi-final on 15th April 1989. Further, this mindset of the police in relation to football fans as a collective, certainly resulted in an indifference that contributed to the tragic events of that day. How else can the inaction of the police, standing just a few feet away from people dying in pens 3 and 4 of the Leppings Lane End be explained? Hillsborough is of course so much more than a football disaster. It exposed the imbalance of power across UK society and how the state, the media and politicians, whether wittingly or unwittingly, fail to adequately represent the interests of significant sections of the public. While there hasn’t been another incident of a similar nature to Hillsborough, the ‘othering’ described above can be seen in tragic events such as the Grenfell fire and the Windrush Scandal. The fact that these tragedies and injustices predominantly involved working class people, people of colour, or were the result of corruption within the police and media cannot be put down to mere coincidence. This collusion between the state, the police and the media intimidates and suppresses the voices of ordinary people who have no one to stand up for them. This makes the relentless determination of the Hillsborough families, in the face of injustice heaped on injustice in a torturously drawn out process that took place over decades, all the more worthy of the deepest respect and admiration. That you could in the last sentence interchange ‘Hillsborough’ with Daniel Morgan, the Shrewsbury 24, Orgreave, Stephen Lawrence, the Windrush Scandal victims, the contaminated blood scandal victims, The Post Office Horizon miscarriages of justice and the atomic bomb test victims, demonstrates that there is something seriously wrong with the relationship between the state on the public. It seems that all the forces of the establishment are combined to ensure that justice is denied to those most in need of it. For an in depth look at both the events on the day and the aftermath of it, the definitive resource is the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report, released in 2012, which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-hillsborough-independent-panel I would also highly recommend reading Phil Scraton’s book on Hillsborough. ‘Hillsborough – The Truth’, available here. For those people who don’t believe that an individual can affect change, it is worth mentioning an incident that took place at the 20th Anniversary Memorial Service at Anfield. Andy Burnham MP, an Everton supporter who was present at the other FA Cup semi-final being played on the day of the Hillsborough disaster, was invited to speak on behalf of the then Labour government. I hope that Andy Burnham, whom I have the greatest respect for, wouldn’t mind too much if I said that while heartfelt, the beginning of his speech sounded like the rhetoric of many other politicians, rather than the compassionate Liverpudlian that he is. Andy’s pledge that the 96 football supporters who died will never be forgotten was met by a lone shout from the crowd: “We want justice!” This was in turn met by a sizeable portion of the crowd breaking into a prolonged chant of “Justice for the 96”. It was clear that it had a profound impact on Andy Burnham, who did well to carry on his speech with such composure, and it set off a chain of events that led to, if not justice for the 96, at least the truth about Hillsborough to become more widely known. I would say to anyone who underestimates the change that their voice can make to watch the clip below. One lone voice did this. Andy Burnham MP speaking at the 20th Anniversary Memorial Service at Anfield on 15th April 2009 As was very belatedly acknowledged in 2016 by the then Prime Minister David Cameron, the victims and the families suffered a double injustice. Not only did they suffer the pain of bereavement, but also the narrative, fed by the very agencies that should have protected their loved ones, that the victims were themselves to blame for their own deaths. This inflicted unbearable and prolonged pain on the families of the victims. It should be noted that this pain continued during the second set of inquests that took place between 2013 and 2016, when the police and the ambulance service continued to mount a determined defence of their actions in spite of the overwhelming evidence of their wrongdoing gathered by the Hillsborough Independent Panel. Astonishingly they continued to apportion blame for the disaster on the Liverpool fans. However, to date, there has been only one successful prosecution in relation to the Hillsborough disaster. The sanction? A fine of £6,500. You can read the sentencing remarks of the judge in Graham Mackrell’s case here. This lack of accountability and justice is a chilling indictment of how the state operates in the United Kingdom. There were three main agencies involved in the aftermath of the disaster who contributed to the years of additional pain suffered by the families: the police, the media and politicians. Further to this, additional pain was caused to the families due to the nature of the legal processes endured in the attempt to find out both the truth and to obtain justice. A very brief summary of the issues is set out below. More details can be found in the Hillsborough Independent Panel report linked above. The Police While acknowledging that there were numerous outstanding individual actions by rank and file police officers on the day, as a body the police were responsible for the deaths of the 97 Liverpool football fans. This complicity was further and unforgivably compounded by a concerted attempt to build a narrative to blame the fans and deflect any blame from the South Yorkshire Police. The building of this narrative started almost immediately and was evidenced by the decision to take blood samples from all the victims, including children, to test for levels of alcohol in an attempt to push the ‘tanked up mob’ story, disgracefully repeated by Margaret Thatcher’s Press Secretary Bernhard Ingham. Further, the details of all those killed were run through the Police National Computer in order to attempt to back up a case that unruly and ticketless fans were to blame for the disaster. This behaviour of attacking the fans and defence of their actions continued in the decades following the disaster and prolonged the pain of the families. In addition, the industrial scale alteration of police statements delayed the truth about the disaster being revealed. The Media The media, particularly ‘The Sun’ publication, aided by contacts within the police, were complicit in promoting the lie that ticketless, drunk and violent Liverpool fans who had turned up late and had forced entry to the ground were to blame for the disaster. This lie persisted for many years after the disaster, becoming the accepted version of events, or at least a significant contributory factor in the eyes of many. Apart from causing the families of the victims unimaginable pain, there is little doubt that this smearing of the victims clouded the opinions of many. The Politicians While there have been notable exceptions, many MPs and others in political posts have been far too willing to accept the narrative pushed by state agencies, rather than the truth set out by the families of the victims. In this, they have sided with those who hold power, rather than those who do not have a voice. Further, some politicians rather than just passively accepting whatever their contacts in the media or the police peddle to them, have actively sought to denigrate the efforts of the families in their pursuit of the truth and justice. Examples of some of the comments are below: In October 2011 David Cameron was widely reported to have said in relation to the Hillsborough families campaign for justice: it was “like a blind man, in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn’t there”. In the interest of fairness, I provide a link to David Cameron’s full apology to the families given at Prime Minister’s Questions in September 2012. You can watch this apology which followed the publication of the Hillsborough Independent Panel report here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mavTTc21sCY In 2004 Boris Johnson wrote in a ‘Spectator’ article: “but that is no excuse for Liverpool’s failure to acknowledge, even to this day, the part played in the disaster by drunken fans at the back of the crowd who mindlessly tried to fight their way into the ground that Saturday afternoon. The police became a convenient scapegoat, and the Sun newspaper a whipping-boy for daring, albeit in a tasteless fashion, to hint at the wider causes of the incident.” On 8th July 1996, Bernard Ingham, Margaret Thatcher’s Press Secretary wrote to a Liverpool fan stating: “After all, who if not the tanked up yobs who turned up late determined to get into the ground caused the disaster? To blame the police, even though they have made mistakes, is contemptible’. Between 1997 and 1998 Jack Straw the then Labour Home Secretary discussed the examination of new evidence. Quotes and memos relating to this below: 5th June 1997 – Jack Straw to Attorney-General John Morris: “My officials have thoroughly examined the alleged new evidence … and have concluded that there are no grounds for establishing a new public inquiry. I am certain that continuing public concern will not be allayed with a reassurance from the Home Office that there is no new evidence. I therefore propose that there should be an independent examination of the alleged new evidence by a senior legal figure.” 9th June 1997 – Home Office memo to Tony Blair: “JS (Jack Straw) does not believe that there is sufficient new evidence for a) a new inquiry, b) reopening the inquest or c) prosecution of individuals.” 26th June 1997 – letter referring to a meeting between Mr. Straw and Lord Justice Stuart-Smith: “The Home Secretary said that officials had considered these questions and their view was that there was not sufficient evidence to justify a new inquiry.” * It should be noted that just a week after the 26th June letter Mr. Straw met bereaved families and assured them that every aspect of the disaster would be looked into. You can read the full article from the ‘Independent’ newspaper here. After a 7 month inquiry Lord Justice Stuart Smith concluded that there was no case for a new investigation into the Hillsborough disaster. The legal process Quite apart from the tragedy of losing loved ones, further anguish was heaped on the families by the legal process which was weighted heavily in favour of those who bore responsibility for the disaster. State agencies such as the police were able to call on unlimited public resources to obtain the best legal counsel in the land, while the families had to raise funds to get legal representation. Only in the second inquest were the scales of justice evened up and the families received equal legal funding. However, the cover up continued in the second inquest as the legal teams reverted back to already discredited positions about responsibility for the disaster. Police officers could escape misconduct proceedings by taking early retirement and public bodies had no ‘duty of candour’ to tell the truth about their failings, or provide full disclosure of relevant documents in their possession. This continued adversarial approach and attempts to cover up the truth considerably lengthened the second inquest, causing yet more pain for the families. In what is almost certainly to have been the final criminal proceedings following the Hillsborough tragedy, further dismay was heaped on the families as the trial collapsed. Once again the legal system was a stumbling block to justice, as the altered police statements were ruled inadmissible as legal evidence for the prosecution as they had been gathered for Lord Justice Taylor’s non-statutory (non-legal) public inquiry. In the absence of any form of justice for the victims and families of the Hillsborough disaster, can any comfort be drawn from the tragedy at least being a catalyst for positive change in how ordinary people are treated by the state? Sadly, it would seem not, although there is a beacon of hope in the proposals for a ‘Hillsborough Law’ which I will come to shortly. Collusion continued between the media and the police as evidenced by events surrounding the telephone hacking scandal, of which many of the victims were ordinary people out of the public eye. The media continue to hound individuals, Ben Stokes and Caroline Flack being two high profile examples, but again this extends to many people not in the public eye who have never sought fame or seen media coverage as a ‘quid pro quo’ for publicity. The police still remain unaccountable, as evidenced by the complete inaction following damning evidence of obstruction set out in the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel report, a murder case that had a number of parallels with the aftermath of Hillsborough. Politicians, fearful of the influence of a ruthless media, cancel inquiries into the relationships between the police and the media, as was the case with Leveson 2, cancelled by Matt Hancock in 2018. I also sense an unseen hand that seems to be a common theme through a number of prominent cases of injustice in the UK. The potential influence of freemasonry was discussed during the second inquest at Hillsborough and also in the Daniel Morgan report. Disappointingly (with some notable exceptions) many politicians’ heads are turned, not by the most vulnerable in our communities, but by corporate lobbyists seeking to ensure it is their voice heard, above those and at the expense of all others. As a proud member of the Labour Party, it was crushing to hear in the recent TV series ‘Anne’, which covered Anne Williams fight for justice for her son who was killed at Hillsborough, the hope generated in the campaigners by the election of a Labour government in 1997, only to have these hopes dashed by its ready acceptance of the police driven narrative of events. Labour. Whether Labour leans to the left or the right, it must always retain its core values of empathy and compassion – and champion those that do not have a voice, over those that shout the loudest. Andy Burnham MP speaking in the House of Commons on 27th April 2016 Thanks to the families and politicians like Andy Burnham, who kept his promise to them, we know the truth about Hillsborough. However, the absence of justice will remain an open wound on UK politics of which we should be ashamed. However, Hillsborough isn’t a one-off. The campaigners fighting for truth and justice around the events at Orgreave in the miners’ strike of 1984, again involving the South Yorkshire Police, will be familiar with many of the issues that arose from Hillsborough, such as false portrayal in the media and lack of police accountability. Grenfell, like Hillsborough, wasn’t an accident, ‘an unforeseen sequence of events’. As with Hillsborough, the tragedy of Grenfell had been foretold, by the residents whose complaints about safety issues had been dismissed, and the Fire Brigades Union who had warned against the watering down of safety standards by both Labour and Conservative governments who, pressured by business interests, prioritised profits over people. 85% of the victims of Grenfell were people of colour, within a working class community situated in one of the richest boroughs in London. Once again the legal process is skewed against the victims as corporate witnesses are granted immunity from prosecution for any oral evidence they give to the Grenfell Inquiry, while residents of the tower block risked deportation. Until we deal with outstanding historical injustices in the UK there is little prospect of ending the imbalance of power tipped in favour of the elites in politics, the media and the police – at the expense of everyone else in the UK. The print media holds so much power that politicians are undoubtedly intimidated by the consequences of any attempts to rein in their influence. It is time for a form of ‘Leveson 2’ inquiry to shine a light on the relationship between the media, the police and politicians. Until the media is held to account by a genuinely independent and powerful regulator the lives of ordinary people, who have never sought or experienced the limelight, will continue to be destroyed. We must press our politicians to stand up for those that don’t have a voice, not to be mouthpieces for those that already do. Second jobs for MPs should be banned in all circumstances unless specifically for the public good. Further, as well as a reform to lobbying rules, there should be a tightening up of the hospitality that is provided to MPs to avoid accusations of undue influence. Our political system is broken. We need fundamental reforms to rebalance power across the UK. This would include a fairer voting system and power being taken away from Westminster and placed in our communities. We must also press for an accountable police force, which acts in the interests of the public, rather than one that prioritises its own reputation while adopting a siege mentality at the mere hint of any wrongdoing. Unless we fix the imbalance of power, we risk the continuation of the circumstances which will result in repeats of the double injustice faced by the Hillsborough families. Finally, when inquiries do take place, there must be a levelling up of the mismatch between the legal representation of public bodies and the families of the bereaved. Promisingly there is now cross-party support in Parliament for a ‘Hillsborough Law’ which has drawn heavily on the review of the experience of the Hillsborough families by former Bishop of Liverpool the Right Reverend James Jones – ‘The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power’. It is hoped that this law if introduced will break the cycle of injustice for bereaved families. It would bring in a number of measures including: A Public Advocate to act for families of the deceased after major incidents. Giving bereaved families better access to money for legal representation at inquests -the measure would allow families, who often find themselves facing expensive QCs, to afford lawyers themselves – creating an equal playing field. Put in place a duty of candour for all police officers and public officials which means they must be open and honest when something goes wrong. A Charter for families bereaved through public tragedy which would be binding on all public bodies. A requirement that evidence and findings of major inquests must be taken fully into account at any subsequent criminal trials. Clarification in law that major inquiries commissioned by government or other official bodies constitute “courses of public justice”. A requirement that any criminal trials following a major inquest take place in a court with relevant expertise and status, rather than a crown court. Andy Burnham, one of the main voices behind the law, says the law would be a major re-balancing of the justice system: From Peterloo 200 years ago to Grenfell today, ordinary bereaved families continue to be treated in a cruel and dismissive way by a justice system which favours the powerful and the connected. It is a pattern that keeps on repeating itself and it is time to break it. Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester If these measures are made into law, they will be a fitting tribute to the remarkable dignity and determination of the families, for whom I have the deepest respect. Never again must families have to wait decades to get to the truth and justice of why their loved ones were lost. No families should ever again have to walk alone. I urge you to contact your MP and ask them to support the Hillsborough Law. #JFT97 #HillsboroughLawNow #DontbuytheSun Julian Vaughan January 2022 Twitter: @juliman66 Sources and further reading: Hillsborough: The Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel – September 2012 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229038/0581.pdf ‘The patronising disposition of unaccountable power’ A report to ensure the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is not repeated – The Right Reverend James Jones https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/656130/6_3860_HO_Hillsborough_Report_2017_FINAL_updated.pdf Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report – June 2021 https://www.danielmorganpanel.independent.gov.uk/ ‘The Shrewsbury pickets, political policing and the state’ – March 2021 https://www.pilc.org.uk/news/story/the-shrewsbury-pickets-political-policing-and-the-state-report-released-today/ The Windrush Scandal explained – The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants https://www.jcwi.org.uk/windrush-scandal-explained #UKpolitics #Hillsborough #Justice #Politics #Liverpool

Blaming the Victorians for a large percentage of our rail network being inaccessible to a significant proportion of the UK public is wearing very thin after 150 years. While some progress has been made since ‘Access for All’ funding for step-free stations was introduced by Gordon Brown’s Labour government in 2006, thousands of platforms across the United Kingdom remain no-go areas for wheelchair users, those with restricted mobility and parents with young children. Whilst the government frequently points out that 75% of rail journeys are through stations with step-free access, it remains the case that around 40% of stations in the UK do not have step-free access. Leagrave station in Bedfordshire – currently a no go area for people with disabilities The current state of the UK rail network presents a huge barrier to the 14.1 million disabled people in the UK. People with disabilities are almost twice as likely to be unemployed as non-disabled workers; are far more likely to be in poverty, and suffer loneliness four times the rate experienced by non-disabled people. Labour’s core values of social justice, solidarity and equality of opportunity intersect with all the above, and we should be leading the way in removing the barriers put in place preventing disabled people from playing a full part in our society. In 2018 I wrote a blog ‘Labour must be bolder on Equal Access’. Reading it back now, it is disappointing how little has changed. While the Shapps/Williams review published in May 2021 states that ‘Great British Railways’ will be given a statutory (legal) duty to improve accessibility, it does not quantify by how much or give any indication of a timeline of improvements. It is concerning that the promised audit of stations will not be completed until 2024 and it is not clear who will undertake that audit. Further, while the various pots of money allocated for accessibility improvements will be consolidated into one large pot, there is no sign that there will be any additional funding to speed up accessibility improvements across the network. The Leonard Cheshire charity has done a great deal of work on assessing the current situation and what it will take to level up the UK rail network. You can read their ‘Get on Board 2020’ report here. In the report research by WPI economics estimated that £400 million a year will be needed to make the rail network in England step-free by 2030, equating to just 1.6% of annual transport spending in England. *figures for Scotland and Wales are contained within the report. However, on current levels of funding the network won’t be step-free until around 2070. Infographic from page 22 of the Leonard Cheshire ‘Get on Board: 2020’ report showing the spend for step-free access required as a total proportion of public transport spending Therefore, even going by the most expensive estimate, the total cost of a step-free network to platform level would be a total of around £6 billion, with the cost spread over 10 years. A sizeable amount of money, but worth bearing in mind that the government spends over £1,000 billion each year. With an ageing population and the urgent need for a significant shift away from the car towards less carbon-intensive public transport, quite apart from the moral issues around equality, surely a price worth paying. Further, this investment provides a return to the economy. In 2014 a report was commissioned by the Department for Transport to evaluate the benefits, including financial benefits of the ‘Access for All’ scheme. It was found that the average benefit-cost ratio was 2.4:1 i.e. £1 of invested returned a benefit of £2.40 to the economy. Looking at what commitments Labour have made towards a step-free rail network over the last few years makes for thin reading. The 2017 Labour manifesto, still one of the best books I have read, stated in relation to accessibility on the rail network: “we will ensure safe staffing levels, ending the expansion of driver-only operations and introducing legal duties to improve accessibility for people with disabilities”. It went on to say that “Labour believes in the social model of disability – that it is society which disables people and it is our job to remove those barriers”. The 2019 manifesto stated “Labour will…improve accessibility for disabled people, ensuring safe staffing levels and end driver-only operation.” Going on to say “Labour supports the principle of ‘nothing about us without us’ and again committed to the social model of disability, as described above. In contrast to the hostile environment endured by disabled people under this government, I have no doubt that a Labour government enacting either of these manifestos would have shown a great deal of empathy and compassion and treated disabled people with dignity. Further, the commitment to working ‘with’ disabled people rather than ‘for’ disabled people was very welcome. However, in terms of detail, both manifestos lacked any specific time-based commitments to making the rail network accessible to all. One of the major issues around rail accessibility is the opaque decision-making process through which some stations receive the funding – and other stations miss out. Below is a list of the criteria, but as there are no ‘league tables’ of how each station matches up to the criteria, communities across the UK have no idea whether their station is going to be accessible in the next five years or the next 50 years. The current list of criteria which through which station bids have to navigate It seems to be a case of who shouts the loudest that succeeds in the bun fight that occurs in the run-up to each five-year railway control period. Controversy about the recent ‘towns fund’ also raises the suspicion of political favouritism in decisions that lack any transparency or public oversight. The current ‘Access for All’ model is broken and we urgently need a rolling programme of improvements and a crystal clear and transparent process of allocation, with targets set for completion. It is worth noting that the Office of Rail and Road advice to the Williams Rail Review contained (on page 33) a recommendation to have “greater transparency of the governance and decision making criteria for ‘Access for All’ funding”. This advice does not seem to have made its way across to the Shapps/Williams review. Above all, end-users need to be involved throughout all stages of the process. literally from the ‘blank piece of paper stage’ until completion. Otherwise, adverse accessibility issues can be baked into designs, that are difficult if not impossible to rectify at a later date. Of course the pandemic has moved the goalposts in terms of public transport usage and it remains to be seen just how long term this impact will be. My personal view is that while many enjoy the flexibility afforded by remote working, and companies eye an opportunity for considerable cost savings, when the pandemic eventually recedes people will again seek more social interaction, at work as well as with friends and family. Further, with road traffic returning back to pre-pandemic levels, short term and medium steps need to be taken to encourage and enable a return to less polluting forms of transport. A step-free rail network isn’t the answer to all our transport issues. It must be part of a range of improvements to create an integrated transport network, with seamless physical and ticketing connections between different transport modes. It is clear that Labour is being very careful to avoid being seen in the same light as what some see as the profligate Corbyn era Labour Party. This caution has resulted in something of a policy vacuum and there have been a number of occasions where Labour have quite rightly pointed out issues with government policy, only to be subsequently unable to set out what a Labour government would do. We can all think of reasons why we and others shouldn’t vote Tory, but we have to offer something for people to vote for. Politics boils down to priorities. A step-free rail network, seamlessly integrated with other transport modes would bring huge benefits to the UK, intersecting and addressing multiple issues across our society. At the heart of Labour values is the desire to create a just society for everyone. It’s time for Labour to put these values into practice and create a rail network accessible to all. Above everything else, it is time for Labour to be bold. Julian Vaughan Twitter: @juliman66 November 2021 Sources and further reading Great British Railways – The Shapps/Williams plan for rail: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/994603/gbr-williams-shapps-plan-for-rail.pdf Leonard Cheshire ‘Get on Board 2020: Making the economic case for “levelling up” inclusive transport: https://www.leonardcheshire.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/Get-on-Board-2020-policy-report.pdf Steer Davies Gleave: Access for All Benefit Research: https://uk.steergroup.com/sites/default/files/2021-03/Access4AllBenefitResearch2015.pdf #UKpolitics #stepfreeaccess #accessibility #labourparty #publictransport #railways #Politics #Transport

After being asked to stand in at short notice and give a presentation to my local Labour Party on Labour’s ‘Green’ policy I spent a few hours trawling the internet and writing notes in preparation. I have written previously about the importance of crystal clear messaging and the need to present a radical alternative to the current Conservative government. Therefore, it was disappointing to find that if you type ‘what is Labour policy on net-zero carbon emissions?’ into a well known search engine, the top five results are from 2019. The first result discussing recent Labour thinking on climate change is an article suggesting that the previous manifesto commitment to a 2030 net-zero target could be reviewed. In the end, this commitment was retained, confirmed in Sir Keir Starmer’s interview with the ‘Independent’ newspaper in August 2021. So what were Labour’s 2019 manifesto commitments on climate change action and how were they formed? Following motions on climate change adopted at the 2019 Labour Conference, the Labour Party tasked a group of independent energy industry experts to identify the most radical and feasible pathway to decarbonising the energy system by 2030. The recommendations are contained in the ‘Thirtyby2030’ report which were then placed in the 2019 manifesto. In summary, the main commitments were as follows: An upgrade of almost all of the UK’s 27 million homes to the highest energy efficiency standards by 2030 The re-introduction of a zero carbon buildings standard by 2020. This standard first put forward under Gordon Brown’s Labour government in 2008, was abandoned by the Tories in 2016 The installation of 8 million high efficiency heat pumps in homes and buildings by 2030 90% renewable and zero carbon electricity production 50% of our heat from low carbon sources 7,000 offshore turbines 2,000 onshore turbines 3 new gigafactories Tripling the current number of solar panels Investment to decarbonise the UK to bring a net benefit of £800B to the economy by 2030 The creation of 850,000 new green energy jobs A windfall tax on oil companies Public ownership of energy and water companies Free bus travel for under 25s and the re-introduction of 3,000 bus services cut by the Tories since 2010 The extension of HS2 up to Scotland The introduction of a new ‘Clean Air Act’ A just transition to a new low carbon economy, liaising with unions to retrain workers. So what if anything has changed in Labour policy since the 2019 General Election defeat? Well, it’s actually quite difficult to figure out what policies have been retained and what policies may either be beefed up or watered down. I’ve spent some time looking for recent policy commitments, either in writing or contained within speeches and I set out what I have found below. However, the vast majority of voters will not be willing to spend anywhere near the amount of time required to obtain this information. On the 3rd August 2021, the ‘Independent’ newspaper wrote of their interview with Sir Keir Starmer that he: “made clear that the detailed policy backing up the pledge was subject to Labour’s ongoing review, which will not report until nearer the next election“. Unfortunately, I believe this cautious approach is a gift to the Tories, who can set out their policies to the electorate without fear of being gazumped by Labour policy. If no alternative is provided it’s very easy for people to believe that what they are being offered is the best deal in town. Without continual pressure on this issue, it also results in an easy ride for a government currently in severe difficulty. I believe it is vital that Labour seize the initiative on this (and other) issues and step into campaign mode, rather than continuing the reactive approach, waiting for the Tories to falter. In fairness, I have noticed a recent change in approach, with Labour getting on the front foot around issues such as the Paterson lobbying scandal, and apart from morally being the correct action to take, it has clearly paid political dividends. However, from various sources, below is the outline of Labour’s current policy offering on climate change action: A £28 billion per year green investment fund A mass retrofitting fund to support 400,000 additional jobs Interest free loans for new and used electric vehicles 3 new gigafactories by 2025 A substantial majority of carbon emission reductions to take place within the next decade A re-commitment to every new home being net zero carbon A new ‘Clean Air Act’ Every government policy to be benchmarked against a net zero test. In her excellent Labour Conference speech (a future leadership contender perhaps?) Rachel Reeves committed to being the first ‘green’ Chancellor of the Exchequer. "I will be Britain's first green chancellor." Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves says the next Labour govt will commit to an additional £28bn of capital investment in the UK's green transition "for each and every year of this decade". Get live updates: https://t.co/rgFcnFuHMT pic.twitter.com/QIj9mBi7Ml — Sky News (@SkyNews) September 27, 2021 The current leader Sir Keir Starmer has recently spoken about climate change being ‘the biggest issue of our time’ and how ‘time is short and we have a duty to act’, as well as setting out the need for a Green New Deal. However, there have also been mixed messages sent out. The Labour Conference policy motion promoted by ‘Labour for a Green New Deal’ was originally ruled out of order by the conference arrangements committee, only to be ruled in order after an appeal. In the end, this motion and another motion on similar lines proposed by the GMB were both passed at Conference. You can read both motions in full here. While there are many similarities between the two, the Green New Deal backed by Momentum, Labour for a Green New Deal and the TSSA and FBU unions, was more wide-ranging, including a national care service and the repeal of all trade union laws, while the GMB’s motion voiced concerns about potential job losses and continuing with nuclear power as part of the UK’s energy mix. It remains to be seen how much policy from both motions is eventually adopted as official labour policy. While we still have unanswered questions about what Labour’s policy is on net-zero carbon, it is worth taking a look at what the Tories say they are going to do, and what they have done in the past. In November 2020 the government released ‘The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution’ and its ‘Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener‘ plan in October 2021 as well as the delayed ‘Heat and Buildings Strategy’ in the same month. These policies have been reviewed by ‘Carbon Brief’, an independent UK-based website covering the latest developments in climate science and climate policy here, as well as the Climate Change Committee, an independent statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008 here. There is a considerable amount of detail in all the documents linked to above, but they also provide shorter executive summaries for those whose time is short. Onshore wind generation makes few appearances in government plans for clean energy The responses to the Tory plans were broadly positive, in terms of the scale of the ambition set out in the plans, while also highlighting a number of areas of concern. A word search in the ‘Net Zero Strategy’ document shows that ‘offshore’ (wind) is referred to 11 times, while ‘solar’ (electricity) generation is mentioned 26 times and ‘onshore’ wind is only mentioned 18 times. Looking through the technical annex of the ‘Net Zero Energy’ report, the table below appears which sets out various scenarios to reach net-zero by 2050, alongside the current emissions for each sector. There are two striking issues with the information in the table. Firstly, by 2050 there will still be a considerable amount of emissions from International Aviation and Shipping. In two of the three scenarios at broadly similar levels to 2019. Secondly, for unproven technology, Greenhouse Gas Removals is doing a lot of heavy lifting to counterbalance the significant amount of residual emissions. Page 318 of the ‘Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener However, while pledges and long-term aspirations are very easy to set out in reports or speak about in interviews it is actions that are the true test and on this basis, the Tories come up short. The zero-carbon homes plan, first proposed by Gordon Brown in 2008, was abandoned by the Tories in 2016 with new proposals not due to come into force until 2025 The government’s desperation to sign a trade deal with Australia led to the cutting of climate pledges to ‘sweeten’ the deal Rishi Sunak’s budget cut domestic air passenger duty, making air travel even cheaper compared to lower carbon emission alternatives The imminent licensing of the ‘Cambo’ oil field to the West of the Shetland Islands Abandoned the Green Homes Grant scheme after less than a year Paid out £40 billion in fossil fuel subsidies since 2020. Further to this, we have a Prime Minister who flew back from the COP26 summit. Johnson already has form for this, after flying by private jet to the G7 leaders’ summit in Cornwall last year. Leading by example is not Johnson’s strength. There are also trust issues with a Prime Minister and a government that has failed to keep their promises, whether it be on HS2, social care, or their shambolic and arguably corrupt approach to the Covid 19 pandemic. A government whose primary ethos is that of profit above all else is likely to be swayed off course by corporate interests determined that the sacrifices that need to be made to achieve net-zero will not be their sacrifices. It’s also concerning that the government seem to believe they can do this without a substantial change from ‘business as usual’, talking about going ‘with the grain’ of consumer choice and ‘guilt-free flying. There was also a lack of any requirement for dietary change. The government seem unwilling to have an honest discussion with the electorate about some of the sacrifices that will be required to successfully meet the challenge of the looming climate emergency. Returning to Labour policy, while they have highlighted the lack of sufficient investment in a green transition from Tory plans, there is so far a lack of detail on how the pledged £28 billion per year will be spent. We are already in the second year of a decade where significant action on reducing carbon emissions is vital to achieving the aim of reducing global warming to as near to 1.5C as possible. With an 80 seat majority to overcome, it is not unrealistic to assume that Labour may not get into power until near its end. However, in spite of this, it is vital that Labour press forward urgently with providing a radical alternative to, and highlight the deficiencies of, current government policy. Waiting until just prior to the next General Election, which may not be called until 2024, loses precious time in which to apply political pressure to force change. The need to act is beyond doubt, we are already seeing the impact of a 1.1C rise in temperatures. I have no doubt that there will be political pressures not to act and attempts made to put up barriers against the migration caused by climate change. As individuals, we can feel powerless against the looming disaster, but we can influence others, and by working with others we can influence governments and in turn, they can influence other governments. It will require collaboration across the political spectrum and long-term thinking way beyond the normal political cycle. Climate change presents huge challenges, but also opportunities to change our society for the better alongside a just transition to a green economy. For these reasons while may not succeed, surely we must try. Julian Vaughan November 2021 #UKpolitics #ClimateEmergency #labourparty #Politics #netzerocarbon

The recent actions by the government in shamefully attempting to defend corruption have done considerable damage to the credibility of Parliament and people’s trust in both politicians and our political system. The actions of the Prime Minister, and others in the Conservative Party, have shown such a blatant disregard for accountability, so vital to our democracy, one can only assume that this was the intention. I have covered in a previous blog the numerous attacks on our democracy by this government. However, this blog will cover issues around money and benefits received from MPs holding additional jobs outside Parliament and how this potentially impacts our political system. Rather than a ‘job’ perhaps a more accurate description of these extra-parliamentary roles taken on by many MPs in the House of Commons would be ‘sinecure’, the definition of which is: ‘A position requiring little or no work, but giving the holder status or financial benefit’. Scanning through the register of members’ interests this description would seem to apply to a considerable number of MPs in the House of Commons. This register has been a requirement since May 1974, the purpose of which is to provide information about any financial interest which an MP has, or any benefit which they receive, which others might reasonably consider influencing his or her actions or words as an MP. Examples of these payments and benefits are shown below. As it is a partial list, you can view the full register here, I have not named the MPs the information is related to: £250 for completing an Ipso MORI survey – time taken 2 hours £2,500 income per month for 8-10 hours work per month as non-Exec Director £480 ticket to Royal Box at Wimbledon 2 tickets to the Wimbledon Singles Final worth £1,545.60 £1,961 Ticket to England vs Germany provided by betting company £16,600 for 40 hours work on providing advice to a betting company on responsible gambling and customer service £30,000 a year as Chair of a venture capital trust for 32 hours of work £700 for two ticket to the FA Community Shield provided by a fast food firm £2,500 a quarter, for a commitment of 3 hours per quarter, as an adviser on communications and marketing strategy to a limited company £200 as a panel member for BBC ‘Any Questions’ Free membership of the Carlton Club £12,000 per year as an adviser for a teak growing company for an expected yearly commitment of 96 hours Strategic Adviser to a healthcare recruitment company, receiving £1,600 a month for up to 8 hours a month. This MP had a duplicate arrangement as a strategic adviser to another company on the same terms £75 for a Savanta Com Res survey – time taken 15 minutes Ticket to the Brit Awards worth £850 £468,000 + VAT, consultant to law firm, for expected commitment of 48 hours a month £27,000 per year plus expenses as Non-Executive Director of Horse Racing related board, 10 hours per month commitment £3,600 ticket and hospitality for England vs Italy Euros final from a civil engineering company £5,000 a month +50,000 share options as member of advisory board for communications company – expected commitment of 10 hours a month. I think you get the drift. The examples above are just a fraction of the entries in the register, which runs to 338 pages and records employment and earnings, and includes gifts and hospitality, donations, shareholdings, and land ownership. The information contained within the register raises several concerns. It would be naive to think that a company would employ an MP as a strategic adviser for a considerable amount of money, for very few hours worked – and expect nothing in return. The rules around lobbying can be read here and forbid paid advocacy in the house. However, it is hard to see that there wouldn’t be conflicts of interest between the public and personal (or employers) interest and there are a number of grey areas which can be exploited. Further, I would suggest that it is not just positive actions that should be regarded as advocacy, but also the absence of any action when a policy is discussed in Parliament. Of course, this passive advocacy would be extremely difficult to prove, hence the problem with paid second jobs. While in some cases the time commitment is very small, in others it is extensive. One has to question how much these extra-parliamentary roles impact on their primary duty to their constituents In some cases, the extent of the time commitments outside parliament seems so extensive it would seem that their role of an MP is viewed as a side-line, and primarily to provide status, for paid employment in outside roles. Everyone loves a freebie, but it is remarkable how many freebies are dished out to those that can most afford to pay for them. Looking through the hospitality provided to MPs the amount of free tickets provided by betting companies raises an eyebrow, as it is such a controversial area in light of the tactics used by betting companies to ensnare vulnerable customers. Again, it is not a direct inducement, and I am not suggesting that tickets for a cup final are given to an MP to push through a particular policy, but it could even sub-conciously, pressure an obligation to the provider of the freebie. I’m not suggesting an outright ban on hospitality, but I would limit its extent and who can provide it. The main rules relating to lobbying by MPs MPs carry out a vital role in our society and deal with issues that can literally be a matter of life or death for their constituents. They also play a significant role in our democracy as part of the legislature holding the government to account. Transparency is vital, and to a limited extent the register provides it, but the potential conflict of interests presented by paid roles outside of Parliament imparts too much of a risk to our political system. Of course, there will be some MPs that would be horrified if their elected position was their only paid role. You may recall an MP recently stated that their £82,000 salary was really grim. I’m afraid I don’t have much sympathy for this view. Of course, all MPs have an employment history before they became an MP and will be influenced by previous life experience and affiliations. However, the sheer number of paid directorship and advisory roles taken on by MPs increases the risk of corruption in our political system and skews our democracy in favour of corporate interests. The primary role of an MP is to represent the interests and concerns of the constituents that elected them. If they can’t carry this role out without additional payments, benefits and distractions from additional jobs, perhaps they should move aside for people that will. Julian Vaughan 5th November 2021 *Added 1st July 2022 – I’ve had feedback from readers about the 2nd jobs of MPs such as Dr. Rosena Allin-Khan and Dr. Dan Evans. I would be happy for an exception to be made for jobs that provide a clear public service and also require competencies to be maintained. There is a world of difference between these essential roles and the many ‘non-jobs’ which are undertaken by MPs for financial reward and in the narrow self-interest of an individual company. Further reading: The rules on lobbying for MPs: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmcode/1882/188206.htm#_idTextAnchor052 Is it all over for our democracy? Blog by the author: http://julianvaughan.blog/2020/12/08/is-it-all-over-for-our-uk-democracy/ #Parliament #democracy #Politics #accountability #houseofcommons

As someone who thinks they are reasonably savvy on consumer issues and does a fair bit of research before deciding on anything, I think I have just made a significant error in choosing my latest energy tariff*. However, before I get into the details of that error, having looked further into the issues around the ‘energy price cap’ I have realised that you soon enter a fog of information overload, with excel spreadsheets and tables which confuses rather than clarifies whether you are getting a good deal or not. There is also clear evidence that the cheapest deals are not being signposted to companies by the energy companies. The energy cap, currently £1,277 for direct debit customers, is priced for a notional typical domestic use amount called the ‘Typical Domestic Consumption Value’. So it is not a cap as such, but the maximum amount you would be expected to pay for a set level of energy use. The current values are 12,000 kWh for gas and 2,900 kWh for electricity. If you use more energy than this amount you will pay more than the cap, if you use less energy you pay less. What the energy cap doesn’t provide with any transparency, is the maximum rate that you can be charged for each unit of electricity that you use. You can find these amounts, but they are buried deep in footnotes. The example below is from a 2018 document, so is therefore out of date and I can’t find a more recent table in any Ofgem press release or web page. The current cap (for October 2021 to April 2022) is 21 per KwH for electricity and 4p per kWh for gas. However, that info isn’t readily available. I found it buried in bullet point 5 in ‘notes to editors’ at the bottom of a 6th August Ofgem press release. This means it is very difficult to compare fixed-rate tariffs, to which the cap in unit price doesn’t apply, against the standard variable rates that are available from companies, where the cap in unit price does apply. Therefore, it is not readily apparent that at the moment a fixed tariff is very poor value for money. As my tariff was coming up for renewal in November, I was sent an email by Octopus in late September giving me two fixed-rate options at 10.47 p/kWh or 7.79 p/kWh for gas, both obviously above the cap. Octopus did give a third option which was the standard variable rate at 3.83 p kWh, which is just below the energy cap of 4p per kWh. I’m not saying Octopus has done anything underhand and I believe they are one of the most forward-thinking companies in terms of what it offers to its customers. However, the email was couched in terms of prices rising rapidly (i.e. stating “the estimates below were accurate when this email was sent, but they may not be when you read this.”) so it potentially encourages a view of a ‘variable’ rate being seen as a highly risky option, especially in light of the media coverage around skyrocketing price rises. If I had been aware of the cap of 4p on default (more commonly known as ‘standard variable rate’) tariffs, I would not have been so concerned. Further, the way the move to a ‘standard variable rate,’ option 3, was put in negative terms i.e. ‘do nothing’ – was a further nudge away from taking that option as, in energy bill terms, doing nothing historically equals more expensive. The three options provided in an email – the cheapest option is given last In addition to the above, when you are on your Octopus account page and click on ‘change tariff’ it will offer you just the two fixed rates – and give no indication of what the standard variable rate is, which is currently much cheaper. This does not strike me as being transparent in offering the best deal for customers. Clicking the ‘change my tariff’ button from your online account leads you to two options, both fixed-term plans considerably more expensive than the standard variable rate There are two main issues here. Firstly, Ofgem who every six months decide what level to set the cap at, only provides a notional energy bill figure based on an assumed level of energy consumption. The cap on the maximum rate, per unit of energy, is not advertised transparently on its website, or in press releases. If you dig deeper and you do find the information it will be presented in a bewildering array of Excel spreadsheets and tables which will be unintelligible to the vast majority of customers. This means that you can’t compare fixed-rate deals against the standard variable rates. My view is that, while I can see the benefits of setting out the cap in its current form, the maximum unit rate allowed under the cap should be displayed and publicised just as prominently. Secondly, it seems from the evidence above that energy companies are under no obligation to promote their cheapest tariffs – and make little effort to do so. While from a business perspective this makes perfect sense, it does not provide the best service to their customers and is ethically questionable. If you look at how Ofgem describes their role and responsibilities they state: “We work to protect energy consumers, especially vulnerable people, by ensuring they are treated fairly and benefit from a cleaner, greener environment.” I would suggest that by not advertising the maximum price per unit in their cap, they are not providing the necessary level of transparency for customers to make informed choices. I believe that this information should be provided in the ‘default tariff cap letter’ which is sent out to all market participants and interested parties every six months setting out the level of the cap. Further, by not enforcing a requirement that energy companies prominently indicate their cheapest tariff, whether a fixed tariff or a standard variable rate tariff, they are not ensuring that customers are being treated fairly. It is clear that whether by design or omission, the behaviour of Ofgem and energy companies has resulted in customers not being provided with clear information on the best deals. How many people in recent months have moved onto another fixed deal thinking that they were getting the cheapest tariff? *So my significant error? Being ignorant of the price per kWh cap, I went on to the 12M fixed loyal rate at 7.79 p/Kwh rather than the far cheaper standard variable rate. However, my current tariff does not expire until 7th November so I will be asking to be put back on the variable rate. Even when the cap increases in April it is likely to be substantially lower than the current fixed rate deals offered. Julian Vaughan 28th October 2021 Further reading: Ofgem press release 6th August 2021: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/record-gas-prices-drive-price-cap-ps139-customers-encouraged-contact-supplier-support-and-switch-better-deal-if-possible Energy price cap explained: https://www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/energy/energy-price-caps/ Default price cap overview document – November 2018: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2018/11/decision_-default_tariff_cap-_overview_document_0.pdf Ofgem info about price caps: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/information-consumers/energy-advice-households/check-if-energy-price-cap-affects-you #gasprices #electricityprices #domesticenergyprices #energycap #energycrisis

As someone who thinks they are reasonably savvy on consumer issues and does a fair bit of research before deciding on anything, I think I have just made a significant error in choosing my latest energy tariff*. However, before I get into the details of that error, having looked further into the issues around the ‘energy price cap’ I have realised that you soon enter a fog of information overload, with excel spreadsheets and tables which confuses rather than clarifies whether you are getting a good deal or not. There is also clear evidence that the cheapest deals are not being signposted to companies by the energy companies. The energy cap, currently £1,277 for direct debit customers, is priced for a notional typical domestic use amount called the ‘Typical Domestic Consumption Value’. So it is not a cap as such, but the maximum amount you would be expected to pay for a set level of energy use. The current values are 12,000 kWh for gas and 2,900 kWh for electricity. If you use more energy than this amount you will pay more than the cap, if you use less energy you pay less. What the energy cap doesn’t provide with any transparency, is the maximum rate that you can be charged for each unit of electricity that you use. You can find these amounts, but they are buried deep in footnotes. The example below is from a 2018 document, so is therefore out of date and I can’t find a more recent table in any Ofgem press release or web page. The current cap (for October 2021 to April 2022) is 21 per KwH for electricity and 4p per kWh for gas. However, that info isn’t readily available. I found it buried in bullet point 5 in ‘notes to editors’ at the bottom of a 6th August Ofgem press release. This means it is very difficult to compare fixed-rate tariffs, to which the cap in unit price doesn’t apply, against the standard variable rates that are available from companies, where the cap in unit price does apply. Therefore, it is not readily apparent that at the moment a fixed tariff is very poor value for money. As my tariff was coming up for renewal in November, I was sent an email by Octopus in late September giving me two fixed-rate options at 10.47 p/kWh or 7.79 p/kWh for gas, both obviously above the cap. Octopus did give a third option which was the standard variable rate at 3.83 p kWh, which is just below the energy cap of 4p per kWh. I’m not saying Octopus has done anything underhand and I believe they are one of the most forward-thinking companies in terms of what it offers to its customers. However, the email was couched in terms of prices rising rapidly (i.e. stating “the estimates below were accurate when this email was sent, but they may not be when you read this.”) so it potentially encourages a view of a ‘variable’ rate being seen as a highly risky option, especially in light of the media coverage around skyrocketing price rises. If I had been aware of the cap of 4p on default (more commonly known as ‘standard variable rate’) tariffs, I would not have been so concerned. Further, the way the move to a ‘standard variable rate,’ option 3, was put in negative terms i.e. ‘do nothing’ – was a further nudge away from taking that option as, in energy bill terms, doing nothing historically equals more expensive. The three options provided in an email – the cheapest option is given last In addition to the above, when you are on your Octopus account page and click on ‘change tariff’ it will offer you just the two fixed rates – and give no indication of what the standard variable rate is, which is currently much cheaper. This does not strike me as being transparent in offering the best deal for customers. Clicking the ‘change my tariff’ button from your online account leads you to two options, both fixed-term plans considerably more expensive than the standard variable rate There are two main issues here. Firstly, Ofgem who every six months decide what level to set the cap at, only provides a notional energy bill figure based on an assumed level of energy consumption. The cap on the maximum rate, per unit of energy, is not advertised transparently on its website, or in press releases. If you dig deeper and you do find the information it will be presented in a bewildering array of Excel spreadsheets and tables which will be unintelligible to the vast majority of customers. This means that you can’t compare fixed-rate deals against the standard variable rates. My view is that, while I can see the benefits of setting out the cap in its current form, the maximum unit rate allowed under the cap should be displayed and publicised just as prominently. Secondly, it seems from the evidence above that energy companies are under no obligation to promote their cheapest tariffs – and make little effort to do so. While from a business perspective this makes perfect sense, it does not provide the best service to their customers and is ethically questionable. If you look at how Ofgem describes their role and responsibilities they state: “We work to protect energy consumers, especially vulnerable people, by ensuring they are treated fairly and benefit from a cleaner, greener environment.” I would suggest that by not advertising the maximum price per unit in their cap, they are not providing the necessary level of transparency for customers to make informed choices. I believe that this information should be provided in the ‘default tariff cap letter’ which is sent out to all market participants and interested parties every six months setting out the level of the cap. Further, by not enforcing a requirement that energy companies prominently indicate their cheapest tariff, whether a fixed tariff or a standard variable rate tariff, they are not ensuring that customers are being treated fairly. It is clear that whether by design or omission, the behaviour of Ofgem and energy companies has resulted in customers not being provided with clear information on the best deals. How many people in recent months have moved onto another fixed deal thinking that they were getting the cheapest tariff? *So my significant error? Being ignorant of the price per kWh cap, I went on to the 12M fixed loyal rate at 7.79 p/Kwh rather than the far cheaper standard variable rate. However, my current tariff does not expire until 7th November so I will be asking to be put back on the variable rate. Even when the cap increases in April it is likely to be substantially lower than the current fixed rate deals offered. Julian Vaughan 28th October 2021 Further reading: Ofgem press release 6th August 2021: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/record-gas-prices-drive-price-cap-ps139-customers-encouraged-contact-supplier-support-and-switch-better-deal-if-possible Energy price cap explained: https://www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/energy/energy-price-caps/ Default price cap overview document – November 2018: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2018/11/decision_-default_tariff_cap-_overview_document_0.pdf Ofgem info about price caps: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/information-consumers/energy-advice-households/check-if-energy-price-cap-affects-you #gasprices #electricityprices #domesticenergyprices #energycap #energycrisis