View from City Road: Regulators caught in a political pickle
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Richard Caborn, the Labour chairman of the Commons trade and industry select committee, has scored a bull's-eye with his cogent and damning criticisms of the regulatory apparatus that has grown up around the UK's utilities. The present regime is rapidly discrediting itself, both on moral and practical grounds.
Morally, because the collection of academically inclined individuals heading Ofwat, Offer, Oftel et al are unelected and unaccountable. Their decisions are essentially political, though dressed up as technical. They have presided over the creation of anti-democratic empires that enforce a limited form of price control mixed with the promulgation of a particular species of competition, often so limited and artificial that it ends up as a cost, not a benefit, to the consumer.
Practically, because they do so with ambiguous and inconsistent mandates, and with no yardsticks against which their performance can be measured.
As Mr Caborn says, what is striking about recent criticisms of the relationship between the Ofgas head Clare Spottiswoode, British Gas and the Department of Trade and Industry is that no framework or guidelines exist against which that relationship can be tested.
The reason is simple. The creation of nominally independent regulatory offices was an afterthought to privatisation, fostered when the Government realised such supposed 'watchdogs' could be made to carry the can for unpleasant but unavoidable political decisions.
Mr Caborn would like to see the Government broaden and deepen the policy burdens on regulators. He believes that would help to deal with situations such as the recent pit closure debacle. On that occasion Richard Littlechild, the electricity regulator, made it clear he was under no compunction to consider the broader picture - which might have saved the coal industry.
Technically, he was right. Given the intimate relationship between the viability of coal and the price paid for it by the electricity companies, however, this narrow interpretation of his brief in effect subverted key political decisions on long-term energy policy.
Mr Caborn makes a very valid point, but it would clearly be equally unacceptable for an unaccountable civil servant to be wandering further into territory that should properly belong to elected politicians.
Ancient Rome was the scene of many debates as to how the ruled can best control their rulers. One might have thought that a classically schooled Tory government, fresh from the fields of Eton and the best universities, would have been quicker to grasp the problem. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?, as they say in Barnsley.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments