Why local councils should become energy suppliers

Freeing local authorities to compete in the energy market would reduce prices, attract green industry and create jobs.

Since Ed Milliband unveiled his plan at the Labour Party conference to freeze energy bills until 2017, the price of energy has rarely been out of the news. The problem with the narrow debate around the size of household bills is that it fails to address the issue of diversifying energy generation. The key to lower prices is, ultimately, a more competitive market. Local government has its roots in energy generation – modern Birmingham was built on the revenue from the local gasworks. It’s time we got councils back into the energy game.

The benefits of a new generation of local authority energy provision will not just be felt in terms of greater competition and lower bills. Councils can sell energy to raise money to pay for public services and, if this is positioned smartly, spur green economic development, creating a new generation of good jobs in the sustainability sector. The low carbon economy already accounts for 8% of GDP. With support from councils, it could grow significantly.

Some councils are already using green energy capture to cut their own fuel bills locally. Birmingham, Islington and Woking are all experimenting with energy generation and redistribution. Islington’s Bunhill Energy Centre, for instance, captures wasted heat to provide cheaper energy to estates in the local area – but these initiative tend to be on the periphery of activity. Scaling this up, generating energy on a much larger scale and linking it to local economic growth strategies could completely transform how we control and use energy at a very local level.

Local authorities have a huge role in economic development. If councils were freed up to compete in the energy market on a local basis, to generate and provide energy, this could attract green industry, create jobs and, crucially, underpin communities with green infrastructure. Local authorities are best placed to shape local markets and skills to align to the green energy agenda.

Generating and recycling energy at a local level would also have a huge benefit to local people in a way that the Big Six just can’t achieve. Local authorities would be able to provide cheaper energy directly to their residents, which should take advantage of local resources in the process. Communities would also become much more directly involved in the energy market by working with local authorities through energy co-operatives for instance, to capture and recycle energy to use themselves and sell back to councils for cheaper redistribution locally. Giving this power directly to communities would both incentivise behaviour change locally whilst helping to reduce the cost of living.

Some will question why councils should return to energy. Why not instead partner with energy suppliers and set up joint ventures to distribute cheaper energy? The problem is that attracting this sort of investment is a real challenge. Local authorities have the financial muscle to invest in this sort of infrastructure development that could accelerate projects quickly, whilst linking it to economic growth strategies.

But the real answer to this question lies with community ownership of resources, which would transform how councils and residents interact with the energy market. Given the current direction of energy bills and how powerless people feel to control it, recycling and generating energy using local resources will become more, not less important, in addressing this problem. Behavioural change will only come alongside ownership of these resources and local authorities, as guardians of localities, are ideally placed to lead this.

Laura Wilkes is Head of Policy and Research at the New Local Government Network

A photo illustration of the filament inside a lightbulb on October 17, 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

Laura Wilkes is Head of Policy and Research at the New Local Government Network

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.