Women’s Suffrage Centenary
Debate between Caroline Flint and Amber Rudd(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amber Rudd
I share the hon. Lady’s view that those refuges provide essential support for women who are victims of domestic abuse and I am proud that we have more beds available now than we had in 2010. She is right that we are conducting a review. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is doing that review, but I will work closely with it to ensure that there is no reduction in the number of beds available. That will be a central part of our domestic abuse Bill, which will be coming forward later this year.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
This is an amazing day for all of us women who have been elected to Parliament. I am the 201st woman to be elected.
I think today reminds us that so often when we study history, women’s participation in it, and contribution to it, is not celebrated or talked about. This is about ordinary people, ordinary women, doing extraordinary things. Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be a wonderful contribution to this centenary year if we asked all MPs to provide a story about the women in their constituencies or areas who did something for the suffrage movement? It could be kept in the House to be used by the education service, so that there will be no reason for future generations of boys and girls not to understand the contribution that women made.
Amber Rudd
I think that that is an excellent idea. I have a very good story from Hastings, which I am longing to put in that book.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Caroline Flint and Amber Rudd
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The CMA investigation represents the biggest investigation into the energy market since privatisation, and the Prime Minister promoted it by referring the market to Ofgem and on to the CMA. The CMA has focused specifically on indebtedness. We will look at its recommendations to ensure that the most vulnerable customers also have the option to switch and are not excluded from competition within the market.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
But the CMA found that 70% of customers were being overcharged, while those on prepayment meters represented only 16%. It found that there had been overcharging of £1.7 billion a year since 2012, rising to £2.5 billion in 2015. A cap is available for those on prepayment meters, but what about the rest of the 70% of customers who are being overcharged? What will happen for them, apart from urging them to switch?
Amber Rudd
It was, of course, disappointing that the Labour party opposed referring the energy market from Ofgem to the CMA. It is the CMA that has come forward with the recommendations, which I think is a welcome development. The right hon. Lady asks what can be done for other customers. The answer is that more competition in the market will allow people to switch so that her constituents will be able to have access to cheaper bills. I hope she will welcome the reform in the market that has allowed more competition to develop, resulting in lower bills for her constituents and everybody else.
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He was an early campaigner on the issue. My Department is putting in place the measures needed to meet our ambitious target for fuel poverty, requiring us to bring as many fuel-poor homes as reasonably practicable up to the band C energy efficiency standard by 2030. As part of that, we have proposed reform to the energy company obligation so that we can support those most in need, and we shall consult widely in the next few months on our proposals to reform the scheme.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Would the Secretary of State like to reflect on her earlier answer to a question, in which she may have inadvertently misled the House by suggesting that Labour did not support the investigation by the CMA? We did support that investigation, but before it was announced we also acknowledged that the majority of customers were being overcharged. Will she, for the record, acknowledge that the CMA reports have now twice confirmed what Labour said—that the majority of customers are being overcharged for their energy?
Amber Rudd
Like the right hon. Lady, I would not want the House to be misled in any respect, so let us be clear. Labour supported the referral to the CMA in 2013, but then argued in 2014 that another investigation was not needed. It is that investigation that has delivered the results, which we will be legislating for, that will make the most significant difference for delivering lower bills for consumers.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Caroline Flint and Amber Rudd(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Amber Rudd
Yes, I do agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is absolutely essential that we improve access for vulnerable people to the switching that can provide such great benefits. It is no good people being able to benefit from a saving of about £200 on their energy bills unless they can actually access it. We launched the big energy saving network and put in £2 million to make sure that vulnerable people, who particularly need the improvement that this can deliver to their energy bills, can access it. One of the ways in which that can be done is through citizens advice bureaux, but in addition we will look at his other suggestions.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
But the Competition and Markets Authority has identified something I have been speaking about for quite a long time: that that sticky customer base is not being served well by energy suppliers. The CMA has said that about 70% of customers on the standard variable tariff are paying over the odds, so has the Secretary of State looked into the suggestion I have made in the past year and previously that we need to protect those customers as well, and that a default or protection tariff could ensure that suppliers provide tariffs that are fair to their customers, and particularly those ones?
Amber Rudd
The right hon. Lady makes an important point and the suggestion about the CMA is helpful—it has just begun to include in its consideration vulnerable customers on pre-payment meters. We are interested in the recommendations it will make—we hope—in the next few months, to ensure that we look after those vulnerable customers who are unable to switch. We have said previously that we will take seriously and act on the CMA recommendations to ensure that we look after those customers who have not engaged in switching but should do so. We look forward to seeing the CMA suggestions for remedies.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Caroline Flint and Amber Rudd(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I know she has a particular interest in solar companies in her constituency, having brought them to my attention before. The sector has, of course, been a great success and has deployed at significantly higher volumes than we anticipated when the subsidy schemes were set up. That is why we are looking again at the right level of subsidy, to ensure that we continue to have a thriving solar industry while ensuring that the bill payer is not disadvantaged.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) to the Front Bench and wish her all the best. I thank her for her kind words, as I thank other colleagues across the House for theirs.
Of course competition should put downward pressure on prices. I have discovered, through a freedom of information request, that despite a tough letter from the Secretary of State demanding price cuts for energy companies in May because of low wholesale costs, responses have not been received from Centrica, RWE npower, E.ON and EDF. The Competition and Markets Authority interim report made it clear that the 70% of customers on their suppliers’ standard variable tariff are being overcharged and it recommended a better deal. Will the Secretary of State therefore join me in calling for the introduction of a protected tariff—a default tariff, as it is known—to make the energy market more competitive and give a fair deal to the consumers who are being ripped off?
Amber Rudd
I thank the right hon. Lady for joining me in making sure that consumers and bills are a priority. The CMA has recently reported—sadly, the Opposition opposed that reference at the time—and we are very interested in what it has proposed. It is just a report at the moment, but the principle of a safety tariff is a very interesting way of approaching the matter. I do feel that we need to take more action to support the vulnerable customers who are not making the switch and are missing out on those opportunities.
Onshore Wind Subsidies
Debate between Caroline Flint and Amber Rudd
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement today at 2.22 pm.
It is only four days since I heard the Secretary of State on the “Today” programme, explaining her Government’s policy changes to onshore wind. That was followed by a written statement later that morning, along with a written statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government on the same subject. Today, she has been forced to come to the House because of the confusion and concern that she has caused. There is concern about the Government’s commitment to our renewables targets and to supporting value for money. There is confusion as to how her policy will apply in practice, and confusion across the renewables sector, where certainty to encourage investment is paramount.
I made it clear to the onshore wind sector before the general election that, although I did not support a cap, a clear pathway to being subsidy-free was an outcome I wanted, so why do I have doubts about the Secretary of State’s announcements? We know, despite the fact that something like 69% of the public support onshore wind—it is the most popular of the renewable energy-generating supply technologies—[Interruption.] It is true. We know that the Secretary of State wants to appease many of her Back Benchers, who seem to hate onshore wind, although one of them is making money out of a solar farm. The election promise of a cap on onshore wind was music to their ears, although they were probably not aware that nearly 1,000 projects had planning permission. It is not clear to me and many others whether the sum of all the Secretary of State’s rhetoric really adds up.
The Secretary of State has proposed a grace period for projects that, as of last week when the written statement was made, had in place planning consent, access to the grid and land rights. Can she confirm that, according to her statement today, that means something like 75% of onshore wind projects with consent will go ahead? The changes to the rules will have to be done through primary legislation, and it could be at least six months between last week’s statement and Royal Assent.
Can I ask the Secretary of State whether, as part of her consultation, she is open to projects that have planning consent, a grid access offer and all land rights sorted before Royal Assent being able to continue with the RO arrangement to 2017? In last week’s press release, the Department of Energy and Climate Change said that up to 5.2 GW of onshore wind power could still qualify, but other estimates are much lower.
In her statement, the Secretary of State referred to 11.6 GW, putting us in the mid-range of fulfilling our 2020 targets for renewable energy. Does that include the 5.2 GW figure? If 5.2 GW is an overestimate, that presumably makes meeting our target less likely. Given that we found out last week that we have already missed our interim 2020 EU renewable targets, that is extremely concerning. What discussions has she had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about how many local or neighbourhood plans are required to identify areas suitable for wind energy? What additional costs may be incurred by councils having to pre-empt planning applications to avoid a company challenging a decision? Out of interest and in the interests of a logical argument, why do these changes to planning policy not apply to all energy generation?
UK-wide energy policy has enabled all of us to share the risks and rewards of developing new and old forms of energy. While Scotland makes up just over 10% of UK households, over 30% of operational onshore wind projects are located in Scotland because of the amount of wind and the contribution of UK-wide bill payers, so it is understandable that Scotland will be worried about the impact on jobs and investment there. What will the Secretary of State do to give confidence to colleagues in the devolved institutions that there will be a genuine process of consultation?
Despite the Prime Minister’s warm words on tackling climate change in this most important year of global negotiations, this Parliament has hardly begun and the cheapest form of renewable energy is already under attack, and other renewable investors are worried that they will be next. I want our country to go forwards, not backwards. This debate is not about hot air; it is about jobs, manufacturing and investment opportunities at risk across the sector. In her answers today, the Secretary of State needs to convince us that she understands what is at stake.
Amber Rudd
I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. May I first take the opportunity to remind her that this policy was well set out before she heard me on the “Today” programme? It was in the Queen’s Speech, in the manifesto and the Prime Minister had referred to the fact that a Conservative Government would take this action. I have in no way been forced to come here. I chose to come here to make a statement after a number of colleagues wanted the opportunity to have their voice heard in support of what is happening. I am delighted to give them the opportunity to do so.
The right hon. Lady chose to question the Conservative party’s commitment to addressing our climate change obligations. Fortunately, she gave me the opportunity to talk about that just 10 days or so ago, when one of the first Opposition-day debates of the Parliament was about climate change. I was able to tell her and the House about the Government’s commitment to meeting the targets and the commitment of the Government and the Prime Minister to getting a deal in Paris this year. We are committed to ensuring that we deliver on our decarbonisation targets but, just as importantly, we are committed to getting a global deal. We do not want to do this alone. We need to provide leadership in the EU and internationally to ensure that our effort is truly leveraged so that we can get that result at the end of the year.
It is disappointing that the right hon. Lady chooses to throw confusion where none exists. I think I was very clear in my statement about the gigawatts involved and the range that we were targeting, but I repeat for her that we hoped to have 10% of electricity generation from wind by 2020, and we are reaching that target early. That is a key reason for ending the subsidy for onshore wind now. We wanted to fall in the middle of the range, and in fact it looks likely that we will be slightly towards the upper end. Having achieved that, it is right that we do not put further pressure on people’s bills. Unlike her and the Labour party, we believe that we can do this in a cost-effective way. We are absolutely committed to supporting renewables, but we want to do it by the most low-cost pathway we can.
In answer to the right hon. Lady’s question about regulation, and particularly planning permission for different sources of energy, it is right that different sources have different types of regulation and fall under different planning regimes. Part of what we are trying to do is to encourage new energy sources, in order to meet our targets and lead to cost reductions. That is why we have different set-ups for different sources—to get the best outcome for both our targets and bill payers.
Finally, the right hon. Lady asked me about Scotland. I have no doubt that I will be answering questions from Scottish National party Members, and I look forward to taking them and addressing them. I have had many conversations with the devolved Administrations, and I look forward to taking further questions from them.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Caroline Flint and Amber Rudd
Amber Rudd
As the hon. Gentleman observes, the price has been falling, and we will keep a careful eye on it to make sure that it continues to fall. I would hope that it should fall at a greater rate than the major energy companies’ bills, because gas prices have been falling at a greater rate.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Recently the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), a respected member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, admitted that the Conservative party had no clear energy policy and had been relegated to “second fiddle”. Helpfully, he added:
“If I’m honest, I don’t think we’ve done particularly well.”
If Government Members do not have any confidence in their own party’s energy policy, why should the British people?
Amber Rudd
I will be answering a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) later, and I look forward to that opportunity. I think that our energy policy is absolutely clear and is delivering what we set out to do. To be honest, the lack of clarity and the chaos is only on the Opposition Benches, because we remain completely confused about the Opposition’s policy towards Ofgem, which they claim to want to amend, on the one hand, and abolish, on the other. As for the price freeze, I think I will hear about that later from my hon. Friend.
Caroline Flint
I am afraid that there will be nowhere to hide in the forthcoming general election as regards the coalition parties and their energy policies. The facts speak for themselves: energy bills £300 higher; three out of four households being overcharged by their energy supplier; the number of families with children who cannot afford to heat their homes at the highest-ever level; and, as we have heard today—it has been reconfirmed—a Government who, for five years, have just told people to shop around. Does not this show that the only way to help households with their energy bills is to elect a Labour Government to freeze energy prices until 2017 while we reform the market and give the regulator the power to cut bills in time for Christmas?
Amber Rudd
That is further chaos from Labour about a cap or a freeze—we have no idea which they would do. Let me point out to the right hon. Lady that during 2013 the UK had the lowest household gas prices and the fifth lowest household electricity prices in the EU 15. In no way are we complacent about what has been achieved in helping people; that is why we back the CMA’s reforms. It is very disappointing that she does not back the CMA’s approach, which will give us an independent review that we look forward to enacting at the end of the year.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Caroline Flint and Amber Rudd(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Amber Rudd
Onshore wind has been an important part of the mix and, of course, we have more onshore wind in this country than in the rest of the world, so I think that it may be time for us to spend our scarce resources on other types of renewables to ensure the best return for taxpayers.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
One of the technologies we provide support to is carbon capture and storage. Is the Minister aware that UKIP is opposed to carbon capture and storage? It has described it as “expensive, difficult and pointless”. Does she agree with me that UKIP’s policy would mean that there is no long-term future at all for any of Britain’s coal mines or coal-fired power stations?
Amber Rudd
I share the right hon. Lady’s views on this. Carbon capture and storage is indeed an important part of our energy mix and an important part of supporting all energy sources in this country.
Energy Company Licence Revocation
Debate between Caroline Flint and Amber Rudd(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
As usual, we have had a wide-ranging debate on energy issues. In the short time available to me, I shall deal with as many as possible of the points that have been raised.
First, let me refer to the motion itself, starting with the facts. Ofgem has issued fines or obtained redress in 39 cases; £55 million-worth of fines have been imposed, and nearly £60 million-worth of redress has been obtained. That amounts to a total of £115 million. Under the last Administration, in the eight years following the establishment of Ofgem in 2001, the regulator took enforcement action in just 10 cases. Since 2010, Ofgem has taken action in 29 cases, levying fines amounting to £50.9 million and forcing suppliers to provide nearly £60 million in redress for consumers who have been harmed. Only today, it announced that EDF would pay £3 million to benefit consumers following complaints of mishandling.
The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and her colleagues may suggest that that is evidence of increasingly poorly behaved energy companies. I believe it demonstrates that we now have a regulator which, in the last few years, has been increasingly prepared to take action when action is required. It is noticeable that nearly 80% of the total amount of money being paid by suppliers directly to consumers who have been harmed by their actions has arisen from cases settled since 2013. It is no coincidence that it was in the Energy Act 2013 that we gave Ofgem powers to require energy suppliers to make such payments. For the first time, payments are being made directly to consumers. That contrasts with Labour’s failed voluntary approach, which did not support consumers in the same way.
Ofgem now has the ability to prevent suppliers from taking on more customers until they have cleaned up their act, an approach that it used most recently to force npower to improve its billing performance. Following the action that we have taken, we have a tough independent regulator which is willing to act to protect consumers against badly behaved energy companies.
The Opposition ask, “Why not give Ofgem powers to revoke licences when companies repeatedly breach the terms of those licences?” It would be right to give such additional revocation powers only if we would be prepared to back their use by the regulator in the circumstances set out in the motion. Nothing that has been said today has convinced me that the right hon. Lady and her team fully understand the consequences of a licence revocation. Someone would need to take responsibility for the suppliers’ consumers. That could be one of Labour’s big six, taking them on as a whole, but whichever we chose, we would be handing it a huge increase in its customer base without its having to compete.
Caroline Flint
Is the Minister aware that the regulator can currently revoke a licence if, for example, a fine is not paid, if a final order is not complied with, or if a company goes into administration? There are already procedures allowing a trade sale to take place and other suppliers to be found. Why can revocations not be applied when there is repeated evidence of harmful and abusive behaviour towards customers?
Amber Rudd
That is an interesting point and one that, in a sense, we have explored earlier, in relation to the terms on which a revocation would take place. However, what worries me about the right hon. Lady’s proposal—which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has called the “nuclear option”—is that it is sudden and dramatic, and would have a very bad effect on consumers. What worries me is that she is being cavalier with consumers. She will be handing one of the big six an increase in its customer base without its having to compete, and with very little notice. That is the problem. If she has answers to some of those questions, it is disappointing that she has not set them out.
Amber Rudd
I am going to proceed with my speech. [Interruption.] Unlike the right hon. Lady, I have only 10 minutes in which to conclude my speech, and I am going to continue.
An alternative would be to split the portfolio between suppliers, but deciding who would get which segment of the portfolio would be a time-consuming process and, again, would raise significant competition issues. And what about the impact on individual consumers? Leaving them on their same tariff is not likely to be workable under the limited tariff rule—and we should remember that we now have just four, not the 400 we had under Labour. Putting them on a deemed contract, however, could lead to an increase in their bills; and allowing businesses to keep their same contracts may not be compatible with their new suppliers’ business model. Our concern, therefore, is that the overall result of a licence revocation—the so-called nuclear option—is, at least in the short term, likely to be reduced competition and higher bills for consumers. That is why Ofgem only has the powers to take such a step in the most serious cases. What we do not want is Labour’s knee-jerk simplistic solutions. This Government are instead focused on taking real actions that will make a difference.
Housing Benefit
Debate between Caroline Flint and Amber Rudd(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree with councillors in Hastings who have expressed concern about the additional pressures that the Government’s policies will impose on their local community, including additional costs for education and children’s services?
Amber Rudd
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for making that point, because it is exactly the one with which I am about to deal. Earlier in the debate, we heard about sensational articles in newspapers and unrealistic reporting. I am afraid that Hastings has been on the receiving end of quite a lot of that. I have spoken to the councillors who made those comments and to our director of housing, Andrew Palmer, who has done excellent work. I asked him how many London councils had made inquiries of him, and he said none. I asked him whether he had had an opportunity to speak to the people who run the bed-and-breakfast establishments that he very rarely uses—although he has had to do so occasionally—and to the landlords whom he uses for the purposes of the local housing allowance. He said that he had spoken to all of them, and that not one of them had received such an inquiry.
I strongly believe that we have been reading sensationalist reports in the newspapers. There is an apocalyptic vision of a group of Londoners arriving on the south coast, but it simply is not happening. I think it important to repeat that so that people do not become fearful. They do not have to believe what is said by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) about extra pressure on education establishments, because that is not happening at the moment.
We hope that rents will fall. Members will not be surprised to hear that I agree with much that has been said by Conservative Members about reducing rents. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) spoke of the unrealistic aspect of falling house rents, and referred to an article in the Evening Standard that focused mainly on larger houses. In my constituency at least, between 80% and 90% of people who receive local housing allowance live in homes with one to two bedrooms. The larger house element does not feature so much, although it represents a large cost. I am told by Westminster council, whose representatives I have consulted, that house prices in its area are falling rather than rising.