@BaronessRos in the Lords - EU: Energy Governance (EUC Report)

Despite the fact that Ros is no longer the Chair of the House of Lords EU Energy and Environment sub-committee, the work done under her leadership still rumbles on, partly due to scheduling delays, as she notes in the speech that follows.

In her speech earlier today, she noted the paucity of the Government's response to her Committee's report...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity this evening to debate the sub-committee’s report on energy union governance. It is some six months since our report was published, although having just heard that the Digital Skills Committee has waited some 16 months for its debate, perhaps I should not grumble as much as I thought I would. However, I make the general point that Members of this House put a huge amount of effort into Select Committee reports, the staff work extremely hard, and outside witnesses and organisations take a great interest in the work we do, so it is a great pity when the House does not find time to debate these closer to publication. Nevertheless, I am pleased to be able to present the report this evening.

For any Government, nothing is more important than keeping the lights on, but we are trying to maintain a supply which is not only secure but affordable for consumers, whether they are individuals or businesses, and which is environmentally sustainable. That challenge—that trilemma—has focused minds on the benefits of co-operation as a means of achieving those goals, and the EU energy union is one vehicle for that co-operation.

I have had the privilege of chairing the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee for three years, and I can honestly say that it has been the most rewarding and fulfilling experience I have had in my 16 years in this House. But now I have, sadly, been rotated off. It is a painless but not entirely pleasant experience, and I shall miss the work a good deal. The members of the committee have always been immensely supportive, and one of the great joys of the work is that we have never been hampered by discussions or debates of a political nature. Our debates are robust at times but have always focused on the issues, and are all the better for that. I therefore extend my sincere thanks to each current member of the committee and to those who, like me, have been rotated off.

I also place on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, the chairman of the European Union Committee. His leadership, encouragement and personal support have been a great help to me. My noble friend Lord Teverson, who I see in his place, has now taken up the position of chairman of the committee and I have no doubt that he will enjoy the experience as much as I have and bring to it his great knowledge of the wide range of subject areas covered by the sub-committee. He served in the European Parliament and previously chaired an EU sub-committee. I wish him well. He, like all of us in this House, will be supported by efficient, knowledgeable and highly-skilled staff, whose commitment to our work, and indeed to the House, is absolute.

As your Lordships may know, the remit of the sub-committee includes agriculture, fisheries, environment, energy and climate change. The subject of the short report for debate this evening is firmly within the realm of energy. It is clear to most of us that energy policy in the 21st century cannot be formed from an isolationist perspective. The European Commission’s energy union strategy recognises this reality and attempts to ensure that Europe has a secure, affordable and low-carbon supply of energy. It aims to deliver energy security, reduce emissions and provide a better deal for consumers, and uses energy efficiency measures, the completion of the internal energy market and research and innovation to deliver this. An agreed EU energy governance framework will be essential to underpin the relationships between the EU institutions on the one hand and member states on the other. Such a framework will seek to meet the energy policy objectives of both the EU and member states but also to respect member states’ national sovereignty.

Before I go on to speak about the report itself I will make one or two comments about the background to it. The committee’s report was published in December and was the result of a short inquiry following a stakeholder seminar and a ministerial evidence session, as well as written submissions. The inquiry was timely; the European Commission published the first state of the energy union report last November and is expected to bring forward legislative proposals on energy governance later this year. Our report offers some thoughts and recommendations ahead of those legislative proposals. I extend my thanks to the specialist adviser to the inquiry, Antony Froggatt, whose comments and guidance on complex and rather technical matters were invaluable.

Our report called on the European Commission to ensure that the proposals for a future energy governance framework include legal clarity, a respect for member state sovereignty, a strong focus on security of supply, a commitment to the consumer, real ambition for decarbonisation, and increased regional co-operation. Indeed, we argue that the EU-wide binding 2030 renewables target will not be delivered unless it is backed up by a monitoring and enforcement mechanism which acts as a guarantor for the agreement and ensures that member states share the effort equitably.

The European Commission response was received on 3 March and was largely supportive. The UK Government’s response to the report was received on 29 February and was accompanied by a covering letter from Andrea Leadsom. It would be fair to say that the response has focused on current UK Government policy and the domestic measures which are already in place. In many cases the response simply avoids commenting on specific EU-level conclusions and recommendations. Overall, it lacks detail and comprehensive engagement with the arguments put forward by the report. I fear that this is due to current circumstances and that the Government are nervous about saying much at all because of the way things stand now. Nevertheless, I will make four points and I will be grateful if the Minister could reply to them at the end of the debate.

In paragraph C of the response, the Government avoid commenting on the report’s headline recommendation that the Commission should be able to propose new measures to guarantee existing EU-level commitments. The response contains a broad statement that agrees with the streamlining of reporting requirements. However, we argue that given the political importance of the EU-wide binding renewables target of 27% by 2030, it is noteworthy that there is no elucidation of the Government’s position. While we know that the Government are sceptical of the sort of enforcement measures proposed by the Commission, we would have hoped for some real engagement with the recommendation, even if only to disagree with it and to suggest what an alternative might look like.

In paragraph B the Government are silent on the committee’s recommendation that they should be transparent, timely and comprehensive in reporting their own progress against each of the dimensions of the energy union. Can the Minister say what the Government’s policy on this is?

In paragraph D the Government comment on bringing forward new renewable support schemes to bring forward additional offshore wind generation. However, they seem to have confused ongoing industry support with the more important need to maintain investor confidence through long-term and consistent policies. This point about investor confidence was a major theme in the committee’s 2013 report No Country is an Energy Island, and its conclusions are as valid now as they were then.

Finally, the Government’s comments on capacity markets are at odds with the view of the sub-committee in a number of areas. The sub-committee recommended that there should be a common framework at EU level to assess the need for and the means of achieving adequacy standards which secure availability of supply without escalating prices to consumers. The Government appear to disagree, arguing that this is a political decision that cannot take place until the internal energy market is completed. In fact, in the sub-committee’s view this is a technical task and would contribute to the completion of the internal market. The Commission agrees with the sub-committee that a common framework within the EU should be developed. Therefore are the Government really opposed to common adequacy standards? On measuring generation adequacy, the Government seem to agree with a common methodology at EU level but also seem to want national assessments. There seems to be an inconsistency here. Finally, on energy storage and demand-side measures the report argues that they should be given equal access to domestic capacity markets. The Government point out that these are already eligible to participate in the capacity market but do not comment on the inequality which we have highlighted.

I have one final point about the UK Government’s overall approach to regional co-operation. The previous report authored by the sub-committee on regional marine co-operation, The North Sea Under Pressure, concluded that no existing body or mechanism has a sufficiently broad remit to facilitate the political co-operation required to make the necessary step change in management of the North Sea basin, and we argued for the re-establishment of a North Sea Ministers’ conference. This recommendation was rejected by government on the grounds that such co-operation was taking place elsewhere. I fear that our calls have fallen on deaf ears. Last week the Vice-President for Energy Union and the Commissioner for Climate Action, with Ministers from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, signed a political declaration and action plan on North Sea co-operation. The declaration will facilitate the building of missing electricity links and allow more trading of energy and further integration of energy markets. Reinforcing regional co-operation will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve security of supply.

The UK was, sadly, absent. The announcement, like much these days, was reported on Twitter and there were lots of comments asking, “Where’s the union jack?”. I fear I know the answer to that but, even if the UK felt that in the current circumstances it was not able to be highly visible, I would like to think that we are engaged in this process. After all, if that well-known maritime nation Luxembourg thought that it was worth while attending and co-operating, it would seem very odd for the UK not to be there. The benefits of co-operating and the savings that come from it are enormous, so it really makes sense to do so.

Energy is crucial for all of us and the objective of secure, affordable and low-carbon energy can be aided by co-operation across borders. The EU has a really important role to play in bringing member states together, whether in a legislative framework or in a spirit of voluntary co-operation. The UK Government need to do more to demonstrate that they are serious about leading in this endeavour, whatever the outcome of 23 June.

A good day for @breckland... how to respond when something goes wrong.

So, what was the mysterious parcel that UK Mail decided was so important it had to be delivered in the middle of the night?

Ros and I had been out and stopped for a light lunch. Allards, in Stowupland, do a very nice bacon roll, so we ordered one each, plus something to drink. I had a pot of tea, whilst Ros went for the strawberry and rhubarb 'Posh Pop' from a company called Breckland Orchard. It went down rather well, so well indeed that we decided to order some for home delivery - it makes an interesting alternative to wine on a pleasant summer's evening.

And so the order was made, and the delivery arranged.

After the delivery, Ros rang Breckland Orchard to raise the issue, and they were genuinely apologetic. It wasn't their fault, clearly, but they took responsibility, offering to apologise to our next door neighbour, and throw in some free products for her. They also contacted her to apologise in person.

I am suitably impressed that a small business should take such trouble. They could have washed their hands of a problem not of their own making, especially given that no reasonable person could blame them for the incompetence of a delivery company employed by a third party - they deliver through a collective website which services a number of small food and drink producers. But they didn't.

So, a round of applause for Breckland Orchard. And, just so that you know, their Plum and Cherry squash is really very good indeed...

A night to forget for @officialUKMail...

I had ordered something to be delivered to the house. Not such a complex task, I thought, although I acknowledge that our home isn't as easy to find as it could be. You see, we live in a village where most houses have names, not numbers. To make matters worse, our house is set back from the road, behind other houses. Accordingly, I give pretty good directions, and always supply my mobile phone number so that the person making the delivery can call me if all else fails.

I'm not an ogre, after all...

And so, when I received a voice mail yesterday afternoon, asking for more information about my address, I wasn't entirely surprised. I called back, in a spirit of helpfulness - I wanted my delivery to arrive safely - to be told that the goods had been delivered already. "So why was I being asked for more information?", I asked. "I don't know,", was the reply, "but I'll find out and get back to you.". So far, so not entirely impressive, but these things do happen.

It was mid-morning when Ros called. Apparently, the delivery had been made. At 1.45 a.m. To our next door neighbour.

It would be fair to say that she was not impressed. I can't say that I was either. I rang the number in Ayr that had contacted me the day before. They were somewhat surprised, but were keen to wash their hands of the matter, suggesting that I talk to the supplier of the goods. Luckily, Ros had already done that. I, meanwhile, expressed a degree of dismay that the person making the delivery should choose to do so at such an ill-judged time, to a village without street lights. Explanation was there none.

It seems that someone at UK Mail is under the impression that they can deliver whenever they feel like it, and that if that means waking up random strangers unconnected to their task in the process, so be it.

Perhaps I am supposed to be impressed that someone could find my next-door neighbour's house at 1.45 a.m. in pitch darkness, walk across the gravel, wake them up and set off their security lights. It could, of course, all be part of their service.

Somehow, I suspect that it isn't...

@BaronessRos in the Lords: Bus Services Bill

Ros has, over the years, been quite critical of Government efforts to interfere with the way buses and bus services are regulated. However, the current proposals offer some cause for optimism.

She wasn't going to let slip an opportunity to condemn what Suffolk Conservatives are doing to a service which has hitherto been pretty successful...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD): My Lords, it is 16 years almost to the day since I made my maiden speech in this House. At the time I was chair of the Local Government Association transport executive, so it was quite natural to make my debut in the Second Reading debate of the Transport Bill 2000. Nowadays, I am that rare being in your Lordships’ House, a vice-president of the LGA. I declare that interest.

The 2000 Act was a wide-ranging piece of legislation and contained an extensive section on the bus industry that was based on a big piece of work, From Workhorse to Thoroughbred: A Better Role for Bus Travel. It was intended to be a major advance for the bus industry. Sadly, it is now available only on the National Archives website. Clearly, it failed in its ambitions because, as we have heard, the bus industry as a whole is in some trouble.

The 2000 Act created a quality partnerships and contract framework which, if we are honest, was not fit for purpose. It omitted the two single most important things for passengers: the fares they pay and the frequency of the buses. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw and I argued at the time that what was needed was a franchising model more on the lines of London, which gave local authorities all the powers that they needed, including enforcement. It is worth reflecting on some work done by the campaign group Greener Journeys, which highlights that average traffic speeds in our cities have now fallen below 10 mph. This of course creates a vicious circle: as the buses slow down, people stop using them and get into cars, which then makes the problem worse.

The point about London that we made then, and which still applies now, is that it is expensive; it costs money to run a franchising scheme like that. My big fear is that by bringing forward this scheme now, when local authorities are in such trouble financially, may doom it to fail because there simply is not the money to do it. Yet, when you look at the figures in London, passenger journeys have increased by 227% since the mid-1980s. If we were able to somehow monetise that in terms of the savings in time, congestion, air quality and so on, it would probably prove to have been good value for money—but that is not the world that we live in.

The Urban Transport Group made the point that the previous legislation, the 2000 Act, was so complex as to be virtually undeliverable—a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. It was inevitable that deregulation would result in an emphasis on profit-making routes at the expense of low-income or non-income generating routes. Bus operators are businesses after all and we need them to be successful. It fell to local authorities to subsidise routes where they felt that there was a social value. These routes are now being lost in very large numbers as local authorities become ever more strapped for cash. According to the Campaign for Better Transport, a total of £22.2 million has been cut from supported bus funding in the current year. One in five supported bus services has been cut back since 2010; that is a picture that we recognise right across the country.

Living in rural Suffolk, I see at first hand all the problems that have been highlighted by the Campaign for Better Transport and the Campaign to Protect Rural England and in an excellent report produced by Age UK that has powerful testimony on the impacts of transport poverty. Older people are more dependent on public transport for access to medical appointments, shopping and even the simple human activity of keeping in touch with friends and family. Younger people, too, are struggling with access to transport to look for work or to get to appointments at job centres. There are even instances of people being sanctioned when they have not kept appointments because the transport does not exist. Low-income groups are more reliant on public transport: nationally they make three times as many journeys by bus as those in the highest income groups. As we have also heard, 60% of people with a disability have no car in their household. The situation is bad for anyone in these groups, but for people in these groups living in rural areas, the situation is dire. I would like to hear whether any rural-proofing has been done on these proposals.

I understand that we have to be realistic about financial realities. Indeed, after I was first elected to Suffolk County Council in 1993, we carried out a review of sponsored bus services and found a surprising number where the per-passenger subsidy was significantly higher than a taxi fare would have been—well, you cannot go on like that. When my now-husband first came to visit me in my tiny Suffolk village nine years ago, he assumed, as a Londoner, that he would just get a bus from the station. I had to explain that in my village, real-time passenger information says “Thursday”. We do not even have that nowadays, and I can understand why.

What we do have is a rather good demand-responsive community transport system called Suffolk Links, which has recently been used in a case study published by Passenger Focus. But even that is now being seriously impacted by budget cuts and the situation has deteriorated in the short time between the report being produced and published. Suffolk County Council announced a new contract just two weeks ago which has removed the ability of pensioners to use their concessionary passes because it has reduced the vehicle size to a nine-seater, which takes it outside the scope of the concessionary fare scheme. What a shoddy trick to pull on pensioners, and I really hope that the Minister will undertake to have a look at those regulations so that we can bring them back into scope.

Like a number of other noble Lords, I am less than clear about the powers that will go to non-mayoral areas as a result of the Bill. I had understood that franchising powers would automatically go to mayoral areas and that the others would have to go through some sort of application process. But there seems to be some confusion about that so I would appreciate clarity. It is absolutely essential that the regulations are clear and well understood so that local authorities do not embark on a process of expensive work that is doomed to fail from the start because they will not meet the criteria.

I would like to raise a new issue which I do not think anyone has mentioned yet: home-to-school transport. Cuts to school bus services are now generating 100 million extra car journeys every year, according to the Campaign for Better Transport, which also says that 300,000 children outside London have lost their school transport since 2008. Obviously, this is a major access issue in rural areas, but it also impacts on the viability of bus operators because many of them rely on school contracts and use the normal service buses for short periods of time every day during term time.

The provisions in the Bill that relate to passenger information are significant and very welcome. If you want to travel from somewhere to Needham Market—you would, would you not? It is a wonderful place—it is not at all easy to find out how to do that. The rail industry has nailed that. It is still rubbish on tickets and clarity of pricing but at least you can find out how to get from one place to another. It is key for passengers to have this information so that they can use public transport with confidence. It is also essential at a more technical level, if franchising is going to work properly for both the operators and local authorities, to really understand the data about how bus services are being used and how they make money.

When I was heavily involved in transport matters, we had a major problem with the competition authorities. I would like confirmation from the Minister that the department is confident that this issue has been sorted. Basically, the competition authorities stopped public transport operators talking to each other. When I was dealing with this in Suffolk, I could not get local bus operators together in the same room because they were so paranoid that they were going to fall foul of anti-competition laws. Clearly, if the sharing of data and so on is going to work, operators have to be confident that they can do it.

The future for bus services across large parts of England is pretty bleak unless we do something fairly dramatic. The Department for Transport’s own figures predict that by 2040 bus journeys will have dropped faster than journeys by any other form of transport. This could severely impact England’s rural and vulnerable populations, and increase congestion and CO2. It is an enormous task to halt this decline. Whether or not the Bill can do it remains to be seen, but it is a step in the right direction. I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. It is absolutely right that it has started its life in this House because there are things that we can do to improve it.

Baroness Hamwee - a cause for celebration

I have, in the past, noted my respect (and not a little affection) for Sally Hamwee. She has been a key figure within the Parliamentary Party in the House of Lords, a valued President of the London Regional Party and, put simply, a nice person. She made my time as a member of the Regional Executive a little more enjoyable than it might otherwise have been. And, it should be noted, she and Ros worked closely together as frontbenchers over a period of years. Yes, I like the noble Baroness.

And so, when Ros mentioned that we had been invited to a gathering to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of her arrival in the House of Lords, I was at first surprised that it had been that long, and then keen to attend myself. It also meant that I could wear a favourite old jacket that now fits again, and renew old and valued acquaintances. What could be better?

The sun was shining, and Ros and I had drunk coffee before wandering over to the Liberal Democrat corner of the Lords, where nibbles and something to drink had been laid on, and the Parliamentary Party had gathered to mark the occasion. There was a speech by the Leader, Jim Wallace, saying how valued she was, and then Sally was prevailed upon to say a few words, before applause broke out.

It was a really pleasant evening, and whilst Jim Wallace did offer a toast to another twenty-five years, I would rather that she had an opportunity to do all of those things that she would rather like to do. She owes the Party nothing at this point - I might instead suggest that the Party rather owes her a debt of gratitude for being such a great proponent of liberal ideas and a keen observer of the all-important detail that bedevils bad legislation. It should also noted how effective she has been in the Home Affairs brief, a combination of sound legal knowledge and innate liberalism.

Thank you, Sally, it's been great. And so have you...

A late night encounter with Mr Grumpy

Nearly ten o'clock on a Monday evening, a rail replacement bus service awaits to convey me from Colchester to Ipswich. I get on the coach (a very nice one, I must say) and look down the vehicle. Every pair of seats has one person in them and so, noticing that there's a spare seat in the front row, I politely ask the person occupying the aisle seat, his briefcase occupying the other seat, if I could take it. He looks at me. He looks over his shoulder down the coach. He looks at me again, as if to say, "why are you bothering me?".

I stand my ground. I'd quite like to sit at the front, and the seat isn't occupied, much as though he'd like it to stay that way. Eventually, with agonising slowness, he gathers himself together, evidently hoping that I might still give up and go elsewhere. I don't. He gets up, makes room, and I settle in the corner, placing my bags in front of me and my iPad on the shelf in front of us. He sits down again, struggles with the seatbelt. He is not happy.

We don't talk...

In the course of the journey, a passenger approaches the driver to ask if he'll drop him off in the Ipswich suburbs. No dice. My neighbour makes some comment, to which the other passenger responds jokingly. It doesn't go down well.

On arrival in Ipswich, we get off of the coach. Further words are exchanged, hostile ones on the part of my neighbour. I leave him in his unhappiness at the world.

He really must be very unhappy...

When retailers fail: feeling a little bit like a vulture (a slightly better dressed vulture, but nonetheless...)

I was reading my newspaper yesterday, perusing the business section, when I came across an article which noted that all of the Austin Reed stores would be closing. Now, I admit, I've never shopped there, but it was a chain that I knew of, albeit the prices were above what I'd normally pay - I've never been extravagant when it comes to my wardrobe.

And my first thought was, "there'll be some decent savings to be had". I noted my diary to drop into the Ipswich store midweek to see what might be had, especially as I need a few new things what with my recent weight loss and all.

However, today, I had an unexpected opportunity to do a little shopping, as I was in London anyway, with a little time to kill. So, I made my way to the Austin Reed at the bottom of Regent Street, emblazoned with closing down posters, and had a look around.

As I did so, I encountered an employee, possibly a little older than myself, who looked somewhat glum, and it reminded me that, when a large company fails, it's the ordinary workers who suffer the worst blow. I felt a mite guilty, coming into the store in search of a bargain.

Now, it is true that, by buying goods, even those marked down, I am helping to generate funds that might go towards redundancy payments, and might even help a potential rescuer by giving them cause to salvage something, some jobs, from the wreckage. It might not be much consolation for the employee.

Of course, it could be that Austin Reed never stood a chance. Britons buy more online than the citizens of other European countries, and retail outlets reliant on in-store purchases are competing in a shrinking market. But I'm an old-fashioned soul, I like to see and feel the merchandise before I buy. I like shops.

The market is often cyclical though. As supermarkets moved away from personal service in the 1970s and 1980s, so they returned to cheese counters and fishmongers in the last decade. Perhaps we'll see a similar cycle in our purchases of clothes. One can only hope...

@unlockdemocracy - it may only be one vote, but it's precious to me...

Yesterday, the postman brought a largish envelope from Electoral Reform Services, containing my ballot paper for the election of a new Council for Unlock Democracy. I am reminded that time flies, having opened the envelope only to find that most of the names are relatively unfamiliar. Given that I was not only on Council myself, but was even a member of the Management Board until four years ago, that might come as a surprise to some.

And so, I have the challenge of deciding how to cast my vote. Ruling out those who haven't managed to submit a manifesto - sorry, but that must surely be a minimum requirement - as well as those whose political views appear to contradict the aims of the organisation, leaves me with a gratifyingly long list.

In order to find out a little more about them, I've asked those on the list a question via e-mail;

Is it ever right to personalise a campaign by attacking individuals, as the UD Lords Reform campaign has tended to do, and if so, when and why?

And for those candidates who didn't supply an e-mail address, please assume that you will be ranked further down my preference list than those who did. It's a participatory democracy, and if you don't want us to play, you might not be entering into the spirit of the thing...

I await some answers... and reserve the right to ask follow-ups...

@BaronessRos in the Lords - Queen's Speech Debate, Day 4

Day 4 of the debate on the Gracious Speech, as the Queen's Speech is referred to in the Lords, saw attention turn to proposals on home, legal, constitutional and devolved affairs. Ros wanted to address the contradiction between the will to devolve significant areas of civic life to the voluntary sector, and the means supplied...

Like my noble friend Lady Barker, I will speak on the relationship between the Government and the charity sector. It is worth starting with the reflection that charities contribute around £12.2 billion to the UK economy and that on top of the millions of people who volunteer on a regular basis around 827,000 people are actually employed in the sector, which is about 3% of the total workforce of the UK. The relationship between the Government and the charity sector is an important one that the Government should take care to get right. All too often we see a lack of understanding in Westminster and Whitehall about the way the sector works, and a tendency to impose change rather than work with it.

The gracious Speech contained reference to a new statutory framework to be set up to deliver the National Citizen Service. I urge the Government to work very closely with the sector on this, because it will not be easy to get it right. Charities cannot just absorb large quantities of volunteers—they need professional staff to train and manage them. In fact, many charities do not lend themselves to the way the NCS will operate. We want volunteering to be a positive experience. That means that we need to take care to match the individual and the organisation. Local volunteers’ centres can be brilliant at doing this, but they have been closing fast due to funding cuts. The whole point of the big society is that it works best when it is small.

Lately, we have seen from government a strategy of announcement, furore and then withdrawal: the PIP changes announced and dropped, outcry at the anti-advocacy clause, and now sending elements of housing benefit reform back to review. Members have marched through the Lobbies, Conservative MPs go on the airwaves to defend the indefensible, and then the Government change their mind. I am not going to lose sleep over the difficulties that that causes for the Conservative Party, but what troubles me is what it says about the Government’s attitude to the voluntary sector.

Coming back to the anti-advocacy clause, Answers to Written Questions from my noble friend Lady Barker show that the Government could offer no evidence of the use of government grants to fund lobbying activities. I know that it is radical, and perhaps I am naive to expect evidence-based policy, but really—no evidence? Do not get me wrong: charities should be scrutinised and appropriately regulated, but the Government should not give the impression that problems exist where they do not. The damage to the sector in the long term will harm all of us.

The governance of charities is in the spotlight more than it has ever been. That is only right. Regardless of whether charities’ income comes from taxpayers through the award of contracts, or from the philanthropy of individuals currently giving around £19 billion a year, they have a right to expect good standards of governance. The NCVO has done a good job in responding to issues such as inappropriate fund raising, while the collapse of Kids Company demonstrates that no matter how good the cause, or how charismatic the leader, not only do trustees have to take their responsibilities seriously but public bodies need to do more to assure themselves that the standards of governance of those to whom they award contracts is in good order.

Traditionally, charities funded their work through donations and grants. That is still the perception. However, over the last decade that has transformed. Charities earn more of their income—55 pence out of every pound in income now comes from providing services or from trading. There are around 163,000 charities in the UK, with a total income approaching £44 billion. Around £15 billion of that comes from working with government. This was increasing between 2000 and 2010, driven by the voluntary sector delivering more contracts. However, as public spending has reduced, charities are now receiving less.

The last time I spoke about this issue in your Lordships’ House two years ago I expressed my concerns about public commissioning and procurement practices. They tend to be focused more on the way the private sector works and do not tend to favour small local enterprises of any kind. I ask the Minister to ask the Commissioning Academy to take more heed of this. The doctrine of economies of scale is driving out innovation and local flexibility. It increases risk and deters new entrants from the market.

The UK boasts a strong and vibrant civil society. Charities are at the heart of that. This core is incredibly diverse, with an army of volunteers and staff providing help and support to individuals and communities nationally and overseas. If the Government truly want to deliver the aspiration of improving life chances outlined in the gracious Speech, they will not do so without the charity sector.

Creeting St Peter: learning how to clean road signs...

There are only two ways out of the village by road, Creeting Lane to the north towards Stowupland, and Pound Road which runs south before reaching a T-junction (left for Creeting St Mary and Needham Market, right for Cedars Park, Stowmarket and the A14).

Before...

And, as you enter the village, there are signs identifying it, above which are 30 mph speed limit signs. One of the two at the south end has been annoying me for some time, as it has been covered with green slime all winter. Today, in my capacity as Parish Councillor and concerned citizen, I decided to change that.

My first job was to cut back some of the tree growth that was obscuring it and, in the knowledge that I would have to pass it on my way to get my morning newspaper, I took a pair of secateurs with me. A quick trim, and the sign was clear of obstructions. Naturally, I tweeted the fact that I was tidying it up. It still looked awful though.

After...

Liberal Democrat Party President, Sal Brinton, thought so too, and wanted to see what it looked like once I'd finished. And so, armed only with a washing-up sponge and a pump action plant sprayer filled with warm, soapy water, I set to work.

Actually, it did the job, and whilst I'm not convinced that the washing-up liquid actually has much effect other than to complicate matters, the slime came off nicely. So, I did the reverse side as well - it's the "National speed limit applies" sign - just to complete the job.

I think that it's come up quite nicely, although the sunshine helps, doesn't it?...

@gdnmembership - are you ever going to give up with the begging letters?

This morning, I received an e-mail from Guardian Members, asking for my support. I used to be a Guardian reader. Yes, I admit it. I'm a liberal, internationalist and socially aware, the very sort of person who fits the stereotypical Guardian reader profile.

However, a few years ago, I gave it up. "Why?", I hear you ask. Because it had become really annoying. Bloody Polly Toynbee didn't help, with her usual "this Liberal Democrat idea is a good one, vote Labour" shtick, but it had become, how can I put this, too worthy, too right-on. And so I switched to the Times.

"The Times? A Murdoch paper? But why?"

I know, evil tax dodger, too happy to tell us what we should be doing but not committed enough to actually bear the consequences by living here. And yes, the Times has an agenda. But I know what that agenda is, and retain sufficient critical faculties to be able to filter what it reports through my own liberal sensitivities.

However, the Guardian refuses to leave me alone. I get, through various channels, repeated begging messages, asking me to support Guardian Media Group by giving it money. I will be frank, if I wanted to give them money, I would buy the newspaper. I choose not to, which perhaps should be a hint.

So, accordingly, I've pressed the "unsubscribe from all" button today, following the link from the e-mail. Ah well, that's one more job out of the way...

Creeting St Peter - a return to the Parish Council

In the midst of the hubbub of my unsuccessful campaign to be elected as a District Councillor for Barking and Somersham, the resignation of the Chair of our Parish Council, not only as Chair but as a Councillor full stop, created an unexpected vacancy.

It was suggested that I might put myself forward, given the changes in the make-up of the council, and I decided that, if I was likely to be welcome, I would do so. It turned out that I was, and so, on 16 May, having raced from the Annual Parish Meeting at Offton and Willisham, I arrived at the Church Room at the end of The Lane, slightly breathless.

Having caught my breath, a somewhat easier task now that I'm a couple of stones lighter, the relevant agenda item was moved, having been postponed pending my arrival, and after a brief speech by me to say how pleased I was to have an opportunity to serve my village again, my co-option was passed unanimously. They had also held back the appointments to outside bodies, and I was promptly put back onto the Stowmarket and District Road Safety Committee. I also share duties as our representative at the local Suffolk Association of Local Councils group with our new Chair, Machala Peecock.

Do you know something? It's good to be home...

"Connecting Communities" - a better service at a lower cost, says our Conservative County Councillor...

At last month's meeting of Creeting St Peter Parish Council, I raised an issue under 'Any Other Business', having been newly co-opted (and I'm really pleased to be back), i.e. the new demand responsive transport service for Mid Suffolk, which comes into effect on Monday week.

The new contract is a worry, for a range of reasons. Funding for the service is to be cut each year for the next five years, and one of the side effects of the change to smaller vehicles is that bus passes will not be valid - a real blow for the rural elderly who face potential isolation. Fares have also gone up due to the withdrawal of return fares - my daily return journey will rise in cost from £2.60 to £4.00. We are also yet to see what effect the combination of three free-standing services into one combined one will have on vehicle availability.

I merely noted that the impact of the new contract would need to be monitored, when our County Councillor, Gary Green came up with the line that is the title of this post. It was a familiar line, in that it was the line spoken by the County Council's Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport when the new package was announced. He is, as ever, on message.

I did wonder at the time of that announcement how you could cut the costs of the contract so dramatically without there being some impact on passengers, and now we know. The service providers now provide their own vehicles - they previously used vehicles supplied by the County Council - so the risks are now placed solely upon the contractor. The existing staff have had their contractual hours reduced, which implies that there will be less cover for sickness and holidays. And, as noted above, the elderly will use the right to use their bus passes.

My fear is that, if the elderly abandon the service, or use it less, it will become less and less viable, to the point where the County Council can walk away from providing such a service all together, a fierce blow to the small villages dotted across Mid Suffolk.

For me, the increase in the fare will be a hit to the pocket, but one that I, at least, can afford. I'm not sure that most of my fellow passengers will be able to be quite so sanguine...

Campaign Diary: Day 30 - a result is declared...

And so, the people of Barking and Somersham have spoken. Well, about one-third of them did - turnout was, as I predicted, 34% - and the result was as follows;

Anne Marie Killett (Green) - 212 votes

Jemma Lynch (Conservative) - 210 votes

Mark Valladares (Liberal Democrat) - 154 votes

Will Marsburg (Labour) - 38 votes

Green gain from Conservative.

The circumstances surrounding the by-election were certainly unusual. The sitting Conservative Councillor resigned, stating that;

In my election address I said I would use my “single voice to unite my like minded colleagues to continue to put local people first”. As some of you know I have some significant differences of opinion with the strategies and the way Mid Suffolk District Council conduct their affairs.

I have concluded that in the foreseeable future my time and talents will not succeed in altering the strategies, approach and culture of this organisation.

Life is too short to waste.

He sent that message widely across the ward, and it can't have helped the Conservatives. In addition, Suffolk Together, a local anti-planning group, who had held the seat from 2007 to 2015, ceased to exist, and UKIP, who had come third last time, didn't field a candidate. The Greens and Labour, who hadn't run in the past, put up candidates this time.

So, an electorate where half of the voters from 2015 had lost their then preferred choice, with public focus on Europe rather more than a District Council by-election.

We ran a decent, honest campaign. Two leaflets, letters to postal voters, doorstep and telephone canvassing, plus a polling day knock-up, was a great effort given the absence of any preparation time. And we did more than double our percentage share from last year and, indeed, 2011. So, all in all, we can be pleased that our efforts were recognised.

I wish Anne well for the next three years, and hope that the people of Barking and Somersham have the representation that they deserve at Mid Suffolk District Council.

As for me, I was co-opted back onto Creeting St Peter Parish Council on 16 May, and look forward to serving my fellow villagers in the future. I have some time to lift my thoughts to the horizon now and, whilst I do have some projects to fulfil, I'm looking forward to spending some quality time with Ros over the summer.

Campaign Diary: Day 29 - the day of truth as Barking and Somersham votes

Polling day dawned, cold and dull - the sort of day when it is oh so tempting to jab the alarm into silence and pull up the duvet. But, for a by-election candidate, it is the culmination of all that hard work. Time to get out and meet the public!

And there is another job, to visit the polling stations and thank the presiding officer and his/her assistant. They're at their station for fifteen hours without a break, making sure that the democratic process functions. I like to look in on them and introduce myself, see how they're getting on, and gather some turnout data. Generally, they're friendly and, as long as you don't campaign in the polling station proper - a definite no-no - they'll make you welcome.

Today, turnout was never going to be massive and the polling stations overwhelmed. Even if everyone turned out, there would only be 110 voters per hour, spread between four polling stations. If the turnout ends up being at or around the 33% mark - and allowing for postal ballots - there will be about 24 voters per hour, or six per polling station on average.

But my colleagues were still willing to put in one last, final effort, the knock-up. And so we did.

Polls have closed, the voters have spoken, and all that remains is the count. And that will take place tomorrow morning.

A restless sleep is in prospect...

Campaign Diary: Day 28 - it's now or never...

The final day before polling day, and the penultimate stage of the campaign, letters to those who have indicated that they will be voting Liberal Democrat, encouraging them to come out on polling day, and squeeze letters to declared Green and Labour supporters, gently encouraging them to vote for me lest the Conservative win on a split opposition vote.

Technology allows us to whittle away the postal voters, most of whom will have voted already, leaving us a group to be delivered to. The team have, once again, rallied round, making short work of the task and all we can do now is wait until polling day and, to a great extent, see what happens. As for me, I was out and about in Barking, despite the cold, highly unseasonal weather for early June.

Meanwhile, news of the first round of postal ballot validation. Naturally, I can't give numbers, but the aim of the exercise is to ensure that the postal ballots are correctly returned. The main envelope is opened, and the signature and date of birth details are matched against the Council's database. If the form with the signature is missing, the ballot paper is invalid - you can't tell who actually filled it in.

We don't get to see the actual ballot papers so, in that sense, it isn't very exciting. You do get to find out what the postal ballot turnout is, which might be a pointer towards turnout on polling day proper.

I'm beginning to get slightly nervous...

Campaign Diary: Day 27 - into the final forty-eight hours...

As I've already noted, very few candidates can stand alone. You could produce the campaigning material, deliver the leaflets and do the canvassing on your own, but unless you have nothing else to do, such as a job, or caring responsibilities, or any of the myriad other things that have a call upon our time, it is well nigh impossible, especially in a four week campaign such as this one has been.

Of course, as the candidate, your enthusiasm can be infectious, and if you work hard enough, other people are more likely to invest their time and effort to support you. I'm lucky enough to have friends and colleagues who believe in me, and who have stepped in to share the task of reaching out to as many people as we can, and it is difficult to describe just how grateful I am to them.

The key players have been Ros, my campaign manager (and wife), Martin (my agent) and Wendy Marchant, who has combined the roles of volunteer co-ordination, deliverer and canvasser, whilst serving the people of Needham Market as their District Councillor.

But there are others who have helped to make this possible. Julia Truelove, our County Councillor for Bosmere (which includes Barking and Somersham ward), who has briefed me on key issues and been a friendly face at various Parish Council meetings, John Field, who was my guide to Baylham, has printed target letters and managed Connect, Stephen Andrews, our enthusiastic Local Party Chair, who has thrown himself into the campaign, plus our local deliverers, who have gotten the message out.

It looks as though we will have improved our share of the vote, at least, that's how it feels on the doorstep. My sense is that we can push the Conservatives close, although how close I wouldn't like to say.

And whilst the Greens have run an enthusiastic, if occasionally cynical, campaign, people aren't telling me that they're going to vote Green in huge numbers.

There is still a Labour vote, and those who have said that they will vote Labour seem pretty determined to do so, despite the fact that their candidate is unlikely to win - there's no evidence that theirs is anything other than a paperless campaign as I write.

Campaign Diary: Day 26 - Bethany to the rescue!

I had run out of leaflets in Somersham on Saturday, leaving me with a small number of houses still undelivered in the core village, plus a few outliers. The plan had been that Ros and I would deliver them on Monday, but ill health meant that Ros wasn't able to drive.

Luckily, my step-son Jamie, and his fiancee, Bethany, were in town, and Bethany offered to drive me over to Somersham to get the job finished. The twelve remaining houses in Somersham proper were dealt with easily enough, leaving Blood Hill to be located and leafleted.

I would be intrigued to know why it is called Blood Hill. Perhaps a pirate got confused and failed to stop at the shoreline but, in reality, it's a single track road that weaves its way from Flowton Road back to Ipswich Road in Offton. There are four or five houses dotted along its length, and stretches that are totally enveloped by trees - very pretty on a sunny day. It was just a pity that the sun, so abundant on Saturday, was utterly absent on a cold, grey Bank Holiday Monday.

Job done, we headed back for a family dinner...

"Building a Better Walrus" - if in doubt, fight a by-election campaign

Well, there you go. Just when you need something to reinvigorate your diet and exercise regime, a by-election turns up, with plenty of opportunities to walk long distances in the fresh air, doing something useful.

You will recall that April did not go well. Alright, it didn't go badly either, but my weight stabilized rather earlier than I would have liked. So, how did May go?

Much to my great delight, I've lost another 3.9 kgs, or 8.5 lbs, meaning that I have lost 13.3 kgs, or just over 29 lbs since I started on 1 January. And that's means that I've made my target for the wedding in early October. Hooray for me, I'd say.

That said, I'm still carrying a whole lot of weight that I really shouldn't, so the exercise regime will continue. Besides, I've begun to enjoy my 10,000 steps each day, and I'm certainly the better for it.

The good news is that I've got some of my wardrobe back. The bad news is that that means that some of my less restrained shirts fit again... With every silver lining comes a cloud, as they say...

Campaign Diary: Day 25 - drawing breath before the big finale

Astonishingly, and thanks to a huge effort by the team, we'd got virtually every leaflet out, and with our policy of not canvassing on a Sunday, that left me the day to catch up with a whole bunch of other things, as well as get some quality home time. Besides, Ros was due home from Cairo, where she had been contributing to a seminar on gender mainstreaming.

Laundry, for example, doesn't get done on its own, and nor does shopping, and in any event, both of us were due in Vilnius by the end of the week, and so I spent the day working around the house, mowing the lawn, collecting my newspaper (it's 6,000 steps to the newsagent and back).

And besides, we still had the last lap of the race to run...

Campaign Diary: Day 24 - a well-timed walk around Somersham

The final leaflet was ready, and everyone was set to go. My job was to deliver Somersham, and my preparations were thorough. A Suffolk Links service was arranged for me to deliver me to Somersham and collect me afterwards, I had the leaflets, all that was needed was for me to stick to time. Luckily, it was a beautiful day, and I set off in high-spirits, a small rucksack on my back loaded with leaflets, and a plan.

Somersham is not so big that it can't be delivered by one persistent individual, and because of its layout, you can actually deliver it without ever doubling back upon yourself. And so, starting at Springfield Road, which has about 8% of all the doors in the ward, I set off, talking to residents as I passed by. It was all very pleasant, and people were quite happy to talk, even if I couldn't persuade them to vote for me, and a pleasing number of them were willing to offer me their support.

The view from the end of Chapel Lane,
Somersham. This is not urban
campaigning...

Along Brook Way, past Cherry Tree Cottages and Mill Lane, as far as the Duke of Marlborough I went, sticking leaflets through letterboxes, on to the Baptist Church in Chapel Lane, then Watering Close and Hall Lane, turning back towards the centre of the village.

It was getting increasingly warm, and I was beginning to regret not bringing a hat, but I was still surprisingly fresh. Past the Community Shop, into, and out of Prince's Gardens, on towards the garage, before crossing the road, heading up Church Lane to Black Barn Close and the final stretch up Flowton Road to Park Cottages.

Despite frequent stops to chat, I was making excellent time and finally made it back to the Community Shop, leaflets delivered, with about fifteen minutes to spare. My ride was early, and I was on my way, footsore but happy to have gotten the job done...

Campaign Diary: Day 23 - a flurry of activity in preparation for a big weekend

"The leaflet is ready, the leaflet is ready!" And so a process is set underway.

Our leaflet 'warehouser' is Cllr Wendy Marchant. On receipt of the printed leaflets, she divides them up into bundles for our deliverers and then arranges for those bundles to be taken to wherever the deliverers are.

It is a very efficient process - Wendy has been doing this for a long time and has it down to a fine art. She even recruits the deliverers who, out of kindness and a willingness to help, make sure that the leaflets that are so lovingly crafted actually reach potential voters.

It makes my job as candidate that bit easier, as it frees up my time to do the one hundred and one things that are my responsibility.

Meanwhile, the gaps in our delivery network are being filled by more volunteers, all of whom are busy people in their own right, and who know that there may be more to come. And I'll deliver my share as well - it gives me a chance to meet more voters and there will be time to stop and chat...

Campaign Diary: Day 22 - from Marshmoor Park to Kennels Farm, via Blood Hill...

Barking and Somersham is, in geographic terms, quite a big place. The seven villages are pretty distinct, with chunks of arable farmland dividing them. And, over the short period of the by-election campaign, I've already developed a pretty good sense of where things are.

That's helped by the fact that there aren't too many roads. There are, however, lots of outliers, i.e. houses beyond the prime settlement limits of each village. They tend not to get too much attention between elections, as the effort/reward ratio is seen as too great, i.e. you spend a lot of time getting to them, whereas in the heart of a village like Somersham, you can knock on a lot of doors covering less distance to do so.

And yet, as Ros has always noted, the very fact that you've made the effort to knock on their door earns you, at the very least, a little respect. They don't expect people to knock on their door, or deliver a leaflet, exactly because they're a bit remote.

If you have telephone numbers, you can of course call them, and when time is short, and you value volume over quality time, it is the safest option. But, if time wasn't an object, I'd prefer to talk to people face to face. It suits my personality and, given that I find people interesting in themselves, gives me a chance to find out more about them.

It is, if you like, something to consider if I am fortunate enough to be elected on 2 June...

Campaign Diary: Day 21 - in which life intervenes in the campaign

I'm a busy person, so I tend to plan things in advance where I can, part of Ros's influence on me, especially when travel is concerned. And, having to go to London for a meeting seemed like an excellent opportunity to renew my passport too. When I had made the arrangements, the prospect of a by-election was not on the horizon.

And so, I had booked an appointment at the Passport Agency in London using its online facility, and was resigned to writing off the day. It was, at least, an opportunity to draw breath before the final run-in to polling day, now just eight days away. Besides, everything seemed to be in hand.

My journey to London was uneventful, and I reached the Passport Agency office behind Victoria Station in good time for my appointment. I had some surprisingly good passport photographs (I'm not keen on being at that end of a lens), and the correct pen to fill in the form - black ballpoint. I used the time to fill in the form before heading inside to wait in a long queue for security.

It wasn't so bad. I made conversation with the man in the queue next to me, and before very long, I was safely screened and in a seat waiting for my turn. Whilst the waiting area is a bit institutional, you aren't there very long, and I was soon called to a desk where I handed over the form, the photographs and my old passport.

It was all very efficient and, five minutes later, I had a receipt to be retained, and instructions to return in just over four hours to collect my new passport. Time for lunch...

I had arranged with Ros to meet her at a place called "The Loose Box" on Horseferry Road, a gentle quarter of an hour walk away, so I set off across Vauxhall Bridge Road, along one side of Vincent Square and past the Westminster Cathedral Choir School building. I forget what an oasis Vincent Square is, with cricket played in the middle during the summer.

Lunch was pretty good - I had the pork belly with mustard mash. Not great for the diet, but I reckon that it can stand the odd day off, especially given the number of steps I'm covering each day.

I walked Ros back to Parliament and set off back towards Victoria for my assigned collection slot, stopping on the way to do a little shopping (I need trousers as my waistline is shrinking), picked up the new passport and set off back to Liverpool Street for my train home.

A week to go and much to do still...

Campaign Diary: Day 20 - it's the final leaflet

The campaign schedule called for the final leaflet to be with the deliverers no later than the Friday before polling day, which meant that it had to be with the printer on Wednesday morning. Accordingly, the leaflet, with photographs of candidate and some very kind endorsements, had to be agreed and proof-read the evening before.

Martin had laid out the leaflet, and my job was to review it, make any necessary changes and approve a final version. Luckily, Martin is pretty good at this, and it didn't require very much work before I could give it the all clear.

And so, here it is...