Women’s Suffrage Centenary

Debate between Amber Rudd and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to make sure that more women get involved in engineering as part of widening their opportunities. While she is thinking of additional landmark anniversaries or celebrations, I point out that today is Safer Internet Day, which is a reminder of how important it is for positive things to be published and circulated online, and of how we have to be so vigilant to make sure that we are not put off coming into Parliament by the online negativity that sometimes takes place.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am delighted that we are celebrating 100 years since some women first got the vote, but now is the time to go further and ensure that all votes count equally by introducing a fairer voting system. It is not an accident that every democracy with more than 40% women legislators uses some form of proportional representation. Does the Home Secretary agree that a fitting tribute to the suffragettes would be to replace our archaic and undemocratic electoral system with one that ensures that every vote genuinely counts equally?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Lady, but I cannot share her view. We had a referendum on that not so long ago, and my view is that the public have had enough of referendums for now.

Calais Jungle

Debate between Amber Rudd and Caroline Lucas

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking any of his constituents, particularly Mr and Mrs O’Connor, who have been so helpful in supporting vulnerable people in the camp. With regard to the Le Touquet agreement, it is well known that in the French political engagement, there is a certain discussion about it. I believe that it serves us as well as it serves France, and I confidently expect it to stay in place.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I echo the deep concerns about the condition of children in the camps. More generally, will the Home Secretary acknowledge that the Government’s approach is leading to a toxic, two-tier system focused on distinguished between “good” refugees and “bad” economic migrants, even if they are fleeing equally desperate situations? Can she say whether an adult who fled Afghanistan, faced mistreatment in Iran, travelled through Turkey, where he had no chance to work, and is now trapped in Calais, desperately trying to meet his brother in the UK, would be defined as a migrant or a refugee?

[Amber Rudd]

I respectfully say to the hon. Lady that we have legislation and regulations in place to help the people we can help, and they are also there to prevent people thinking that they can come here when they cannot. We must have clear signs about who this country will willingly and enthusiastically protect and look after, because we have strong, proud British values, and about who we cannot. We should not do ourselves damage or in any way downgrade our values by saying that we should do more.

EU Referendum: Energy and Environment

Debate between Amber Rudd and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend and, as he rightly said earlier, we must move on. There are benefits to what we have already proposed and there have been benefits from the EU directives as well. They have raised standards in some areas, and I believe we will now maintain them and not allow them to slip at all.

[Caroline Lucas]

We were speaking earlier about investment and how, unfortunately, investors are getting increasingly cautious. Will the Secretary of State do all she can to persuade her colleagues that we must remain part of the European Investment Bank, at least as long as the negotiations are going on, because if we withdraw right now there will be another huge amount of potential investment not coming into this country when we need it most?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question; I was going to talk about investment anyway. She is absolutely right to mention the importance of investment in securing our clean energy. Like her, I appreciate the impact that the European Investment Bank has had on supporting clean energy in this country and I would hope that our membership of it will continue. I cannot give her any commitments, however. I shall wait to see how this emerges as part of the negotiations, but I share her view on how important it is.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Amber Rudd and Caroline Lucas

Monday 18th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

The right hon. Gentleman asks me a false question. The fact is that we have to deliver on our manifesto commitments, which is why we will be ending onshore wind subsidies. However, we will still be making our target, which in 2012 we put at 11 to 13 GW by 2020. That is consistent with our progress on our renewable targets. In regard to the amount that will be saved through taking these actions, our lowest estimate is about £20 million a year and our highest is about £200 million a year. Those are significant sums, and I urge him not to discount them by making them sound quite so trivial.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Further to the point that has just been made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), I do not agree with the way he put it but he made an important point, in a sense. The Minister is proudly talking about the way in which our emissions have come down, but if we take into account our consumption emissions—in other words, the emissions that are linked to our consumption patterns when we import things from places such as China—does she agree that our emissions have actually gone up? We must take some responsibility for those industries that we have outsourced to places like China while we enjoy the benefits of them here.

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady should speak to the hon. Gentleman, who takes a slightly different view—

[Caroline Lucas]

But what is the answer?

[Amber Rudd]

I will come back to the hon. Lady and say that she, too, should take comfort from the Paris agreement, which will oblige all countries to take action in this important area.

The other activities we are taking on in order to deliver on our low carbon future is to press ahead with a new fleet of nuclear power stations. We are also encouraging new gas-fired power stations so that we can end the use of coal for electricity generation by 2025.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Amber Rudd and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

3. What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the outcomes of the COP 21 climate conference in Paris.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

18. What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the UK’s contribution to achieving the goals on limiting global warming set out in the Paris agreement on climate change.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

We are currently considering the implications of the Paris outcome domestically and with our EU partners. Our 2050 target of at least an 80% reduction in emissions from a 1990 baseline is already set in statute. We are committed to meeting it, and I look forward to setting out this Government’s proposals and policies for meeting our carbon targets later this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

I do not accept that we are undermining those policies. What we are trying to do is get the right balance to support policies—to support renewable energy—while also looking after bill payers and ensuring that not too much is added to their bills. I also remind the hon. Lady that the UK is responsible for 1% of the world’s emissions, and the success at Paris was that we were dealing with nearly 100% of the world’s emissions. That is where we will get the real difference and change on carbon emissions.

[Caroline Lucas]

I hope the Secretary of State will agree that delivering the Paris climate agreement requires a cross-departmental and economy-wide approach. If that is the case, will she explain why there appears to be absolutely no mention of climate change in the remit of the National Infrastructure Commission? Will she urge her colleagues to remedy that, and confirm that the urgent need for rapid decarbonisation will be a non-negotiable criterion for every single one of its projects?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing up the National Infrastructure Commission. I have had a preliminary meeting with the head of it, and know that it will shortly be consulting on which projects to prioritise. The project that it has already said it will be looking at in our sector—interconnectors and systems operations—will be important for delivering on our decarbonising future, and will play an important role in achieving cross-party consensus on making the much-needed investment in infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

The Government think that nuclear reactors are an important part of delivering a low-carbon future, but we also have a great opportunity to ensure we develop skills, as my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned. I will ensure that my Department considers the hon. Gentleman’s point carefully and gets back to him with some answers.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

In her attempt to explain the hugely unpopular cuts to solar, the Secretary of State constantly pretends this is about reducing costs to householders, yet industry analysis shows that solar will cost half as much as Hinkley over 35 years and save consumers about £15 billion. How can she keep justifying such blatant double standards when it comes to nuclear power?

[Amber Rudd]

I am sorry, but the hon. Lady is not dealing with the facts. The solar changes will still deliver a 5% yield to those who put them up, but nuclear provides an important base-load, even when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow. She can have her own views, but she cannot have her own facts.

Climate Change Agreement

Debate between Amber Rudd and Caroline Lucas

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue of competitiveness. The fact is that getting this global deal is a way of addressing that issue, because other countries will have to step up and make the same sort of plans that we are making. But the best way to reduce the costs of energy is to drive them down through the sort of actions this Government are taking.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

In all the acres of media coverage of the Paris agreement, George Monbiot sums it up best:

“By comparison to what it could have been, it’s a miracle. By comparison to what it should have been, it’s a disaster.”

I welcome the inclusion of the 1.5° goal, but it is meaningless without policies to deliver it—in particular, keeping the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground. Will the Secretary of State tell us how the Government’s recently agreed duty to “maximise” the economic recovery of oil and gas is anything other than completely incompatible with what she has just signed up to in Paris?

[Amber Rudd]

I am going to interpret that as a cautious welcome from the hon. Lady. There is an element of this deal that she must agree is rather extraordinary: having 200 countries participate. The answer to her question is that we cannot take any risks at all with energy security. Maximum economic recovery is absolutely a commitment from this Government. We have to get a balance right. We have to make sure that we protect energy security while growing our low carbon economy—we can do both.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Amber Rudd and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 19th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Recent analysis shows that UK power could be almost 90% renewable by 2030, while electrifying 25% of all heating demand and putting around 12.7 million electric cars on the road, but that would require cutting demand for space heating by over 50%. That means much smaller bills, too. The Secretary of State has clearly been spending a lot of time with the Chancellor recently; can she tell us whether energy efficiency will be a Treasury infrastructure priority in the future?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I am aware of the absolute importance of getting heat right and of the fact that we need new policies in order to meet our targets and that heat is an important part of trying to reduce fuel poverty. I have proposals, and she is absolutely right that some of them are with the Chancellor. I hope to come back and make announcements in due course.

Onshore Wind Subsidies

Debate between Amber Rudd and Caroline Lucas

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, and her constituents sound very similar to mine. We share the desire to make sure that we address the issue of climate change: the problem is that we do not want large-scale solar. In fact, large-scale solar has already been taken out of the renewables obligation, but we are trying to support solar so that we have as much as possible through community energy, on people’s houses and on other buildings. There is a great opportunity there.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The IMF recently reported that Britain subsidises its fossil fuel industry to the tune of more than £1,000 per household, whereas onshore wind is just £10 a household. If the Secretary of State is serious about affordability and climate change, why is she not tackling fossil fuel subsidies, instead of slashing wind—one of the most popular and affordable of the energy sources?

[Amber Rudd]

I urge the hon. Lady to take a look at that report. I also saw those statements and found them so extraordinary that I asked for a copy of the IMF report. I would be happy to have a discussion with her about it. It is not a direct subsidy in the way that we understand it, although it is an important point. It is right to reduce the use of fossil fuel, especially in its dirtiest form, but the real danger is health and environmental impact, and that is why we need to get rid of the subsidies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Amber Rudd and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 5th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We are all aware of the hard work she has done to support vulnerable people and to make such an extension happen. We are pleased that the warm home discount now extends to a broader group, which includes families with children, particularly those with children under five or disabled children. Data sharing is an important part of being able to find out how to deliver to the right people. We will of course keep those opportunities under review.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

T6. Does the Secretary of State share the widespread disgust at Ofgem’s recent advice on paying energy bills, which included suggesting that families in fuel poverty should make packed lunches for their kids and cancel gym memberships? Instead of that insulting response, does he agree that the Government should consider changing the rules, so that Ofgem advises on energy efficiency and not on packed lunches?

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Debate between Amber Rudd and Caroline Lucas

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I rise to speak to new clause 15 and amendments 98 and 103. Both shale gas and geothermal energy are exciting new energy resources for the UK, with the potential to provide greater energy security, growth and jobs, while also playing an important role in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I will make some progress, but I will give way to the hon. Lady during my speech. The provisions in the Bill provide for a right to use deep-level land for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep geothermal energy. That will help us unlock exploration for shale gas and deep geothermal as we move towards a low-carbon economy.

Several hon. Members have brought forward new clause 4, which would place a statutory duty on the Committee on Climate Change to produce reports on the effect of shale on the UK’s net carbon emissions. Amendment 44 states that the right of use, and the carrying out of hydraulic fracturing, are conditional on the finding in the Committee’s reports

“that shale…exploitation leads to a net reduction of UK carbon emissions.”

The Government are committed to reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. To meet our challenging climate targets we will need significant quantities of renewables, nuclear and gas in our energy mix, and we are committed to listening to the experts and their advice on how to reach those targets.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister explain how public confidence in fracking is enhanced by the Government’s refusal to let the public see an unredacted copy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report on the impacts of fracking on the rural economy? Will she make a gesture today by saying that that report will be unredacted and put in the public domain?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady will know that this matter is included in one of the amendments, which I will come on to discuss more fully later. Although I cannot make the commitment she is asking for, I will speak more fully on it a little later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I hope he will find that it will be dealt with later on, but if it is not I will certainly write to him on that point.

New clause 19(m) relates to water companies. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that water companies are engaged fully in shale gas development. The existing regulatory framework ensures issues relating to water are addressed robustly. The water industry and shale operators have already agreed a memorandum of understanding to engage early, and share plans for water demand and waste water management. The Government have considered this issue carefully and want to provide further reassurance to the public. Therefore, we are consulting on whether to make water companies statutory consultees in respect of these applications. Subject to the response to the consultation, which closes at the end of this month, we would seek to bring forward any necessary secondary legislation.

New clause 19 has raised some very interesting and critical points in relation to reassuring the public. It is the Government’s view that we will accept new clause 19, but we plan to amend it in the other place to replace provision (g) on depth, with a review to put back the depth at the appropriate level for proper development.

On amendment 61, regarding compulsory purchase of properties in the event of blight, I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) that the regulatory regimes for planning, environmental permitting and health and safety already provide a very robust framework that ensures residential amenity is properly protected from any unacceptable effects of development. The protection of amenity is recognised in the core planning principles of the national planning policy framework. In the unlikely event that operations caused any damage, there are various options available. The landowner may be able to bring claims in tort, such as negligence and nuisance, against any operator. I trust my explanation of this issue reassures hon. Members, and that they will withdraw the related amendment.

On new clause 8, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ “Rural Economy Impacts” document was a draft internal document, which was not analytically robust; it was a literature review of existing studies and was not exhaustive. Where policy work is current, draft documents are usually kept within government, because they do not provide a complete and accurate picture of the overall material. This is a highly sensitive and fast-moving policy area. Releasing information that is at the formative stage of being shared between Government Departments risks substantially undermining our ability to deliver effective policy.

DEFRA retains an interest in the implications of shale gas development for rural communities, but the Department of Energy and Climate Change leads on the economic aspects of shale gas policy. It is therefore my view that DEFRA should not have produced a document of this kind. The redactions were made for those broader reasons, not on the basis of sensitivity of materials. In fact, in the interests of providing free access to the information on which the draft paper was based, the Government have provided the full list of references. Following Committee, I consulted with a range of colleagues. Releasing the unredacted draft paper would not help to inform the debate on developing the UK’s shale industry. I ask, therefore, that my hon. Friend withdraws her amendment.

[Caroline Lucas]

What the Minister has said, essentially, is that DEFRA should not do research that might possibly become embarrassing if it become public. How on earth does she expect people to have any confidence in the Government’s policies on fracking if the Government cannot even put the research in the public domain?

[Amber Rudd]

I do not think the hon. Lady quite heard my comments. If somebody in another Department has prepared something, a junior member perhaps, and it was not appropriate for them to have done so, which is a comment I have fairly made, I do not think it is appropriate for it to be released. It could mislead the public. It is because I am so concerned about the public that we have taken this view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

I am concerned that I still need to cover several amendments. If I may, I shall move swiftly on, and I hope that hon. Members with particular concerns will take the opportunity to speak later.

New clause 9 and amendments 49 and 57 propose a moratorium on the exploitation of onshore unconventional petroleum, subject to an impact assessment, and that the right of use be subject to the precautionary principle. I am surprised by these proposals. It is far more sensible to explore the potential of shale and assess the impacts along the way, while ensuring that development is regulated and risks managed. I hope I outlined my confidence in that process earlier. On the amendment suggesting that the right of use be subject to the precautionary principle, I reassure hon. Members that the right of use is limited to being no greater than access rights granted by landowners under the existing system.

Amendments, 51, 56 and 47 are not necessary. I have already outlined why the underground access provisions are required. Many other industries already access underground land beneath peoples’ homes, in order to lay cables and build infrastructure such as water pipes and tunnels. I ask that hon. Members do not press these amendments.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

I shall not take any more interventions, as I must finish my comments.

Amendments 50, 68, 69 and 73 touch on the recovery of UK petroleum. Amendment 50 would delete clause 37, which puts into primary legislation a new duty to maximise the economic recovery of oil and gas. The Government feel that oil and gas recovery makes an important contribution to the national economy by supporting jobs and growth. In June 2013, we commissioned Sir Ian Wood to review UK offshore oil and gas recovery and its regulation, and we have been making good progress implementing the recommendations.

The amendments would also place a moratorium on hydraulic fracking for shale gas to reduce the chance of our carbon budgets being breached. As I indicated, UK shale development is compatible with our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions and does not detract from our support for renewables. I hope hon. Members will find this explanation reassuring and will not press their amendments.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) for tabling new clauses 10 and 11. It is critical for any Government to secure reliable gas supplies, and we keep our gas security under constant review, but let me be clear: the risks to consumers are low. We still have significant levels of domestic gas production, pipelines from Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium, liquefied natural gas terminals and 10 gas storage facilities. Indeed, two new gas storage sites have opened for business in the last six months. This diversity of supply is how our gas needs are met.

Under the Gas Act 1986, the Government and the regulator have a duty to carry out their functions in a way that protects the interests of existing and future gas consumers, including the security of supply. Ofgem also has the ability to launch a significant code review, if it suspects a problem in the gas market. I respect my hon. Friend’s experience on these matters and take his concerns seriously, and on that basis, I will commit to including information about gas storage capacity in our annual statutory security of supply report to Parliament. I hope he will find that reassuring.