Alan Duncan, Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, answers your questions:
Mark Wadsworth: Do you still stand by your comment of a couple of years ago that if the electricity generators were left to their own devices (without subsidies or penalties or other government interference) then they would probably go for gas or coal rather than nuclear or wind-power?
If you had a couple of billion in the bank and wanted to go in electricity generation, what would you choose?
Alan Duncan: I do still believe that the market is much better qualified to decide on the mix of generating sources rather than Government ministers. I believe that the role of Government should be to set the right framework of incentives reduce emissions, including a long term price for carbon, and ensure energy security.
It is important that this framework is set out for the long term, so that investors have the opportunity to invest in projects with high capital costs and a long term return or to invest in projects were the return is currently more marginal.
I believe that there is a risk that without the right framework of incentives, the default option for generators will be to invest in new gas or coal plants rather than in lower carbon emitting alternatives.
Nick: Our recent local election showing in one of our top target constituencies - Tynemouth - was less than great. There was essentially no change, and in some areas the Labour vote went up.
As Shadow Minister for Tyneside, which issues do you feel appeal to people in the North?
To put it another way, are the politically correct, enviro-luvvy ideals of Islington and Notting Hill the right line to be taking to win on Tyneside?
Alan Duncan: The results in Tynemouth and across North Tyneside where actually quite good. Overall we got 50 percent of the vote in the Tynemouth wards. I am very confident that Wendy Morton will be the next MP for Tynemouth
It was disappointing that Labour gained one seat (previously held by an independent) on North Tyneside Council, but with 28 seats we are still the largest party.
The performance in Newcastle and Gateshead was also disappointing but I wasn’t expecting a massive breakthrough this time around. We have to be clear; the Conservative Party has been behind in areas like Tyneside for a very long time. Our position has been slipping for a ages and once a political organisation falls to a certain level of political support it is too easy to slip of the radar entirely.
I think that things are beginning to change. I have been welcomed in the North East and there is very little of the anti-Conservative hostility you might have expected a few years ago. We need to continue building our organisation showing that we are there in the North East and that we really do care about the same issues as local people.
I don’t buy the argument that the transformation of the Conservative Party is turning off voters in the north. It is true that the party is doing a lot better in the South East, but the improvements in the North have been less marked. I don’t quite see how this can be interpreted as suggesting that people in the north care less about the environment, or rebuilding communities with a sense of social responsibility, or improving our public services. It might well be that we need to work harder in areas where our support has been weaker to let people know that the Conservative Party is addressing the areas they care about.
Stephen Warrick: Given that in Newcastle and throughout Tyneside the Conservatives have again recently scored the political equivalent of a Eurovision "Null Points" do you think it is time for the Conservative Party to assert a more ambitious policy programme for the North East?
I have long advocated a 'Regional Trade Zone' which would be similar in effect and ambition to the original Special Economic Zones in Shenzen / Guangdong, China.
I.E. an attempt to create a regional Global Trading Zone deploying the key economic advantages of some of our poorest regions (e.g. a trade zone encompassing parts of Teeside, Tyneside, Northumberland, Cumbria AND the Borders) such as (in UK terms) more competitive wage rates, pools of unskilled labour, large lower cost land areas (e.g. for expansion).
Proposing such a trade zone with say, a 25 year moratorium on employer NIC's and business rate relief would be an eye-catching proposal to voters in 'The North' as our party still refers people.
At a swoop, it would offer an ambitious, market-based economic stimulus to parts of the UK regarded as a Labour tribal territory.
I note that Simon Heffer in the Telegraph, ahs recently mooted this too, but I am sure the copyright holder remains a one Mr. S. Warrick of Newcastle Conservative Fedn.
As a Geordie myself, I am damn sure that my fellow North Easterners would react positively to being reminded of our great trading / industrial history as one of the cradles of the industrial revolution.
If Germany can increase its Manufacturing output, GDP and Exports as it has recently, sure this proves that it is not a foregone conclusion to write off manufacturing in advanced economies such as the UK?
Alan Duncan: It was disappointing not to have any councillors in either Newcastle or Gateshead. I do think that we need to ambitious in our policies to help areas like the North East. This is why I have set out a Tyneside test where all our DTI policies would be tested for the impact they would have on improving the economy of the North East.
Manufacturing is still vitally important to the UK economy and it would be totally wrong to write it off and accept its decline as inevitable. The Labour Government has been an unmitigated disaster for the manufacturing sector with over one million jobs lost. A Special Economic Zone model might work and we do need to look at ways of developing a more entrepreneurial culture in areas like the North East and encouraging the growth of indigenous businesses.
One area we are looking at in more detail is the work of RDA’s. There is a role for bodies which can co-ordinate regeneration and development policies which are larger than individual local authorities but it is unclear how RDAs can justify their huge budgets and if the money they spend is really effective in stimulating economic development.
Teesbridge: If an incoming Brown administration decided to abolish or substantially gut the DTI, would Mr Duncan oppose?
Secondly, given his oil industry background, does Mr Duncan favour the return of a separate Department of Energy?
And thirdly, how does Mr Duncan divide his efforts between the departmental brief and his regional brief - fifty/fifty, ninety/ten?
Alan Duncan: I believe that the DTI is failing as a department. The DTI should be a department which is a voice for business in Whitehall and a voice for Britain in the world. Under this Government, the DTI has failed in carrying out this role. Under Labour productivity has fallen, but the DTI has responded by imposing more regulations on business, our trade deficit has widened but our trade promotion effort under UKTI is confused and unfocused, the UK’s carbon emissions are increasing, but its energy policy in is chaos.
Despite this record of failure, I don’t agree with those who think that the DTI can simply be scrapped. There are lots of things that the DTI does, such as overseeing company law and competition policy that can’t be done away with or very easily merged with other departments. I believe that any changes to the department should strengthen the voice of business in Whitehall rather than weakening it. There are various options on how you could do this and it is not yet clear what Gordon Brown will do.
Energy has gone from been a backwater to one of the most newsworthy and politically interesting areas of the DTI’s work. Even though energy is and will remain a very important area, I am not convinced of the need for a stand alone energy department. Energy is so important because it is something which impacts on so many areas. We need to be increasing the coordination between energy policy and other policy areas rather than reducing it. Having a separate Secretary of State for Energy would probably weaken rather than strengthen the importance of energy round the Cabinet Table. A Department dealing with only Energy would be one of the smallest and therefore one of the weakest departments.
There are some that argue that because reducing CO2 emissions is a key priority for energy policy, it would make sense to move energy to DEFRA, others would argue that energy is a very important area of commercial activity and energy supplies are vital to all industries so it fits much better in a DTI like department. My personal view is that keeping energy within the DTI doesn’t preclude a central focus on reducing emissions; conversely simply moving Energy to DEFRA won’t magically make our electricity supplies any greener.
It is very difficult to give you a breakdown on how much time I spend on fulfilling my roles as the MP for my constituency of Rutland & Melton, the Shadow Secretary of State for Trade, Industry & Energy and the Shadow Minister for Tyneside; each of them takes up a significant amount of my time.
Lucy: How tall are you?
Alan Duncan: I ambitiously say that I am 5’ 6” but maybe 5’ 5 ¾”
Simon Chapman: Do energy security considerations dictate that Britain should make a strategic commitment to nuclear power as one element in our mix of energy sources, as well as to green renewables?
Alan Duncan: I get very worried when it is suggested that the Government should start choosing between different generating technologies. Decisions taken ‘in the national interest’ often have unintended consequences and end up being very expensive for the taxpayer. I believe that the Government does have a role in setting frameworks to ensure the security of energy supplies and to reduce CO2 emissions, but I don’t believe that politicians or officials are in the best position to choose between alternative ways of meeting these objectives. I strongly believe that the market is in a much better position to decide what is the most effect way to deliver green secure energy supplies.
Andrew Lilico: You are well known for your interest in Arab affairs. Ought a Conservative government seek to re-build Britain's reputation amongst Arab nations, and, if so, how?
Alan Duncan: I do believe that the foreign policy of the next Conservative Government should make rebuilding our reputation in the Arab world a key priority. The Arab world is undergoing a fascinating process of change and development. Where that change and development eventually leads will have a huge influence on the rest of the world.
Britain has traditionally played an important role in the Middle East and has enjoyed an important position of influence. Tony Blair’s decision to go along with the invasion of Iraq on the false pretence of the risk from weapons of mass destruction has been very damaging to our reputation in the region. A Conservative foreign policy which believes strongly in Britain’s national interest and encouraging the growth of freedom and security would consider rebuilding our ties in the region as a key priority.
Watchdog: Why did you publicly support Democrat John Kerry for President of the United States? What qualities do you think he had, that the U.S. voters subsequently failed to recognise? Go on tell.
Alan Duncan: There are three main reasons why I supported Kerry rather than Bush. Firstly, I am very concerned about the influence of the extremist Christian right on Republican politics. Secondly, I think that Bush’s foreign policy and his approach to terrorism is far too simplistic. Thirdly, as an economic Conservative I think that Bush’s decision to let the US budget deficit increase so much is irresponsible and I believe will lead to serious problems in the US and therefore the world economy in the future.
Another reason for supporting John Kerry is that I have met the man. I saw him speak when I was a student at Harvard and when I was a Shadow Foreign Minister I met Senator Kerry and Senator John Edwards whilst they were on a delegation to London.
Justin Hinchcliffe: Who do you think will make the best American President (of all the declared candidates) and why?
Alan Duncan: I think it is too early to tell, but I am watching the race with interest.
Joshua: Do you think it was wrong to hang Saddam Hussein?
Alan Duncan: No. He was found guilty of the most appalling crimes against the Iraqi people by an Iraqi court and his sentence was therefore a matter for the Iraqi authorities.
Brian Jenner: I was thinking the other day, which of the members of the Shadow Cabinet, if they organised a party, would you think it would be interesting to go along to?
Your name was the only one I could think of. Why do you think that the Conservative Party has lost all its appeal as a social organisation?
Alan Duncan: I did throw a party for my birthday in March. The whole of the Shadow Cabinet came and it was tremendous fun! I am sure that all of my colleagues could throw a good party. I think the Conservative Party is a far more vibrant an organisation than it was a few years ago, we have more members from a wider variety of backgrounds and CF is now the largest political youth organisation in the UK.
The days of the Conservative Party being the match making organisation of middle Britain has passed, the nature of political involvement has changed and over past few of decades all political organisations have seen a decline in membership.
I do think that it is important that Conservative Party spokespeople come across as normal people who people can imagine have the same kinds of concerns as voters and can therefore be trusted to govern the country for the interest of the people not themselves.
Next time I have a bash, I’ll try to remember to ask you along.
TaxCutter: What's the best way of driving forward a free trade agenda to benefit the UK and indeed also our trading partners?
Alan Duncan: I think that if we are to drive forward the development of a worldwide free trade regime it is important that rich countries don’t preach to poorer countries about the advantages of open markets whilst choosing to protect their own key sectors. I am very frustrated by the impasse in the Doha round negotiations and I worry that a collapse in negotiations would put back the cause of a proper multi-lateral agreement which works in the interests of all countries.
1AM: 1) Given that much of your plans towards the Post Office are extending the freedoms of sub-Postmasters, why not privatise the Royal Mail and give a proportionate subsidy to all rural post offices (e.g. 50% top-up of their takings)?
2) Why not allow parish councils and other local organisations to subsidise local post offices rather than central government?
3) Do you agree with the point that councils will either provide services through Post Offices if it cuts costs for councils or won't if it doesn't and if not why not? If councils do provide services which raises their cost to councils it is just a hidden local subsidy - which you might as well admit?
4) What plans do you have to cut the £6 billion DTI budget, where and why? (And if not, why not?)
Alan Duncan: The plan to privatise the Royal Mail and then use the proceeds to subsidise rural post offices is exactly what the Lib Dems are proposing. The problem is that this plan confuses stocks with flows. Selling Royal Mail to get a stock of money would raise a lot of cash which the Government could choose to subsidise the network with, but what happens when that money runs out? We would be left in exactly the same position we are in today. Rather than a one off injection of cash, the post office network needs to revolutionise their business model. They need to look at new ways to increase the number of people using their services and therefore their earnings.
One think I am clear about is that a strike by postal workers will do nothing to help the Royal Mail compete. The fact that the Royal Mail needs to change the way it works to adapt to a competitive market is a reality which the Communication Workers Union needs to accept.
There are examples of parish councils and local authorities supporting local services, but the question is would a parish council be able to afford to subsidise a loss making post office, or could a local authority show that a susidy was an effective way of spending council tax payers’ money? I believe that working with local authorities to find new ways of attracting more customers at post offices is far more effective than asking for subsidises.
Councils will work with post offices if they believe that it helps them deliver their services in a cost effective way if they don’t they won’t and it should be for local authorities to judge what systems work most effectively in their local circumstances.
There are many areas where DTI could spend its budget more effectively one area we have been working on is the cost effectiveness of the Government’s complex business support schemes. Across Government this costs £12 billion. The Government promised to reduce the number of schemes from an absurd 3,000 to 100; however they have failed to make much progress with this. Our own research has shown that the system is ineffective and that only 15 percent of small businesses have has any contact at all with any of the schemes.
RDAs are another area we are looking at. Each of the nine RDAs spends between £250 and £450 million per-year but there is no convincing explanation or analysis whether such massive budgets are justified.
James: Why do you think that certain gay men on the Conservative benches, or in very senior offices outside the Commons, continue to remain in the closet (including those whose sexuality is, as the media always puts it "widely known") given the openness shown by people such as yourself, Nick Herbert, Iain Dale, Margot James and so on? And did coming out make your life easier?
Alan Duncan: Coming out was one of the best decisions I have ever made and yes it has made me happier. If there are people in the Conservative Party who are gay and haven’t come out, I believe that it is matter entirely for them. I do think, however, that it is important that the Conservative Party is a party where openly gay people can feel relaxed and content, and the fact that the party does have openly gay representatives has been a very important step.
