Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Amber Rudd

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Last month in this House, the Home Secretary told me that some papers would be withheld from the Cyril Smith inquiry for reasons of national security. This week, the Prime Minister has written to me to say:

“We are clear that the work of the security services will not prevent information being shared with other such inquiries.”

Will the Home Secretary confirm, for the survivors of Cyril Smith who have waited for justice for decades, that she was wrong and that the Prime Minister is right?

[Amber Rudd]

I am happy to confirm that the Prime Minister is always right. I will certainly look carefully at the letter the hon. Lady has received to ensure that we comply with it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Amber Rudd

Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will be aware that last week’s revelations about Cyril Smith in the child abuse inquiry demonstrate that the cover-up of decades of child abuse reached the highest levels of Government. Will she commit to releasing papers held by all Departments and agencies in relation to the case so that Cyril Smith’s many victims, who were denied justice in his lifetime, can now find it in theirs?

[Amber Rudd]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that, where appropriate, those papers are being released. Some papers are held for national security reasons, and she would not want me to persuade the security services to release those. However, I am encouraged to hear her positive approach to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse for perhaps the first time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Amber Rudd

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

1. Whether she has held discussions with the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse since the withdrawal of the charity Survivors of Organised and Institutional Abuse from that inquiry.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)]

May I take the opportunity, first, to welcome the new shadow Front-Bench team—the hon. Members for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), for Derby North (Chris Williamson), for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan)? They are welcome indeed.

I agree that it is regrettable that Survivors of Organised and Institutional Abuse has withdrawn from the inquiry. The inquiry is making good progress, in line with the plan it published last year. This is evidenced through public hearings and other events with victims and survivors. I retain my confidence in this independent inquiry to deliver its important work, to get the truth and to learn lessons for the future.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the Home Secretary for that, but this is now really serious: this is the fourth victims’ group that has left, and today we have had the Sutton review, which reads like a total whitewash and suggests that no lessons have been learned by the inquiry or by the Government that set it up. What message does she think that sends to everybody in this country who is currently relying on a public inquiry to deliver justice for them?

[Amber Rudd]

I ask the hon. Lady to reconsider her view. The inquiry has said that the group can always come back if it wants to, and I ask her to think again about the people who are already being helped by the inquiry. There are 60 to 80 people whose experiences and attacks have been referred to the police, which may lead to prosecutions, and there are up to 1,000 people whose lives have been changed and who are getting the answers that they want. Those are real differences, which I ask the hon. Lady not to underestimate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Amber Rudd

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

T4. Last Thursday, “Newsnight” reported serious allegations of sexual assault by the most senior lawyer on the child abuse inquiry, Ben Emmerson, QC. The disclosure was made in early September, but no action was taken until 29 September. The Home Secretary’s predecessor hand-picked Mr Emmerson for the inquiry. Can she therefore tell us why it took so long for action to be taken, why the investigation into his conduct was dropped, and why he is still reportedly being paid £1,700 a day even though he no longer works on the inquiry?

[Amber Rudd]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have set out what we knew at the time and its relevance. It is really important that this inquiry continues. The hon. Lady asks questions that are for the head of the independent inquiry. It is essential for the authenticity of this inquiry that it is held independently. It is not run by the Home Office, and that is an essential part of its integrity. I urge her to stop knocking the inquiry and start getting behind it.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Amber Rudd

Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the remit, organisation, budget and staffing of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)]

I would like to make a statement on the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. I know that the whole House will agree with me when I say that the work of the inquiry is absolutely vital. Victims and survivors must have justice, and we must learn the lessons of the past. The inquiry’s remit is to examine whether institutions in England and Wales have failed to protect children from sexual abuse. It is an independent body, established under the Inquiries Act 2005. The Home Office is the sponsor Department, and I am responsible for the terms of reference, appointing the chair and panel members, and providing funding. Last year, the inquiry had a budget of £17.9 million and underspent by over £3 million. The appointment of staff and the day-to-day running are matters for the chair.

I appointed Professor Alexis Jay as chair of the inquiry on 11 August, following the unexpected resignation of Dame Lowell Goddard on 4 August, and I am aware of questions around the reasons for that resignation. Let me spell out the facts. On 29 July, the secretary to the inquiry met my permanent secretary and reported concerns about the professionalism and competence of the chair. My permanent secretary encouraged the inquiry to raise those matters with the chair. He reported this meeting to me the same day. My permanent secretary also met members of the inquiry panel on 4 August. Later that day, Dame Lowell tendered her resignation to me, which I accepted. Less than a week elapsed between concerns being raised with the Home Office and Dame Lowell’s resignation. My permanent secretary’s approach was entirely appropriate for an independent body.

The second issue relates to my evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. I was asked why Dame Lowell had gone. Dame Lowell had not spoken to me about her reasons, so I relied on the letter that she had sent to the Committee. In her letter, she said that she was lonely and felt that she could not deliver, and that that was why she had stepped down. Dame Lowell has strongly refuted the allegations about her. The only way we could understand properly why she resigned would be to hear from Dame Lowell herself. To echo any further allegations, which are now likely to be the subject of legal dispute, would have been entirely inappropriate. We now owe it to the victims and survivors to get behind the inquiry in its endeavour. My own commitment to the inquiry’s work is undiminished, and I invite the House to offer its support in the same way.

[Mr Speaker]

I have no wish to be disobliging to the Home Secretary, but for the record, and for the propriety of these proceedings, I should just mention that in no meaningful sense of the term was she making a statement to the House, which is a matter of conscious and deliberate choice by the Government. The right hon. Lady was responding—she has done so timeously—to an urgent question, which I have granted. In other words, the Home Secretary is here because she has been asked to be here, not because she asked to be here. That is quite an important distinction, which we ought to respect in the language that we use.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Amber Rudd

Thursday 12th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to have as many choices as possible for people, and the CMA has made some proposals, but we also have to be careful to ensure that this is addressed fairly, that the cheapest tariff is available and that there is full disclosure. I tend to encourage people to go to the Ofgem website beanenergyshopper.com.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is fond of telling us how keen she is to cut energy bills, but last Friday, when attention was diverted elsewhere, her Department revealed that families in this country will be asked to pay up to an extra £38 on their energy bills to fund her failure to get new power stations built. Can she confirm to this House that not only is she asking families to pay more to fund her policy of closing coal- fired power stations, but, at exactly the same time, she is going to ask them to pay more to keep them open?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady is referring to the changes to the capacity market, and I am concerned that she has not grasped the facts of the situation, which are that wholesale prices have fallen, with the consequence being that coal prices, and indeed some gas prices, become uneconomic. Because the Government will take no risks with energy security and because we are absolutely clear that it must be the No. 1 priority, we have brought forward a new capacity market that will stop there being the sort of price hikes which are most unwelcome. My Department estimates that this will actually save consumers up to £46 on their bills.

[Lisa Nandy]

The absurdity of the situation appears to be completely lost on the Secretary of State, but as she has been on this panic spending spree recently perhaps I could ask her another question. She recently announced generous subsidies to EDF, the big energy company that operates Britain’s nuclear fleet. She has agreed to hand over £153 million in 2018 and a further £139 million the following year to subsidise nuclear power stations that would have been open in any case. Is she aware of the recent news that the cost of Hinkley Point C is set to rise to £21 billion, which is £3 billion more than was forecast? What is her estimate of the cost to bill payers and taxpayers in the UK of this new revised figure?

[Amber Rudd]

I am concerned that the hon. Lady did not hear my answer to her earlier question. The fact is that energy security has to be the priority of government. In bringing forward changes to the capacity market, we have made sure that, with low wholesale prices, we have sufficient energy during the next two years. She just reveals her total lack of understanding of getting the right balance on secure electricity—nuclear and, yes, in the short term, coal—which supports our renewable investment, keeps bills low and ensures that customers always have a good supply of electricity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Amber Rudd

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I welcome the action that the CMA recommended for prepayment customers, but I urge the Secretary of State to heed the words of my hon. Friends who urged her to go further. I am sure that she is as angry as I am about the treatment of these customers. I am sure she is also as angry as we are about the treatment of 70% of customers who have been overcharged to the tune of £1.7 billion a year. The Energy and Climate Change Committee said that the Secretary of State’s

“Sudden and numerous policy announcements…lack of transparency…insufficient consideration of investor impacts…Policy inconsistency and contradictory approaches”,

coupled with the

“lack of a long-term vision”,

have raised the cost of investing in UK energy by £3.14 billion a year. Given that she is costing bill payers almost twice as much as the big energy companies, will she refer herself to the CMA?

[Amber Rudd]

Let me start by answering the key point that the hon. Lady makes about the 70% of consumers who are not on prepayment meters and are overpaying. The central way to address the 70% is to make sure that there is more competition in the market. When we came into office in 2010, there were six suppliers; there are now 31 new independent suppliers. Switching times are now down to 17 days and, with Ofgem’s guidance, we hope to move to same-day switching by 2018. All those measures will enable consumers to access a competitive market.

The hon. Lady’s comments regarding the Energy and Climate Change Committee are a random selection of some of the Committee’s thoughts. I do not share its views. In fact, I have been advised by a number of people who have attended the Committee and by major investors that they take great comfort from the clear direction that has been set out from the Government Benches for future energy policy.

[Lisa Nandy]

It is extremely disappointing that after this lengthy investigation, the Secretary of State has decided to blame customers for not switching and to let energy companies off the hook, so perhaps I will try another one. The CMA inquiry has also found that price comparison websites are taking tens of millions of pounds a year in commission from the biggest energy companies. In 2014 alone, they were paid £24 million. Following her announcement that she will not hesitate to take forward the CMA’s recommendations, does she plan to implement the recommendation to allow the same websites to now deliberately hide the cheapest deals from customers?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady has misunderstood me. There is no blame on customers and no blame is being apportioned. We are saying that the CMA has provided a wake-up call to the energy companies, which now need to take action to address competition within the area. We are confident that its recommendations will be key to delivering the competition and low prices that Labour so clearly failed to deliver before 2010.

[Lisa Nandy]

What about price comparison websites?

[Amber Rudd]

We already have a price comparison website to which we refer people. The “be an energy shopper” website will then give customers a choice. I urge the hon. Lady to take a look herself and perhaps consider switching.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that reliable switching between energy suppliers underpins a competitive energy market and, above all, puts consumers in control. That is why the time it takes to switch has already been halved from five weeks to two and a half weeks. We do not want to stop there, which is why we are working with Ofgem and the industry to deliver reliable next-day switching for consumers, with an aspiration to do this by 2018. We will introduce legislation to achieve that.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

With fresh doubts over whether a new nuclear station will ever be built at Hinkley Point C, it appears that Britain’s energy security is now in the hands of the French and Chinese Governments. If the French Government decide not to offer up more money for the Hinkley project, will our taxpayers be on the hook or does the Secretary of State have a plan B?

[Amber Rudd]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that this proposal in Hinkley Point will be going ahead. I do not share her doubts. To further reassure her, let me tell her that although Hinkley Point is an important part of our low-carbon future, it is not the only nuclear initiative. If she had paid attention during the Budget, she might have heard the Chancellor announce further support for small modular reactors, which could also be an important part of a low-carbon future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Amber Rudd

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and share his enthusiasm for storage. We are at the moment working with Ofgem to address how we can best encourage it within a secure regulatory environment. I cannot at this point say whether it will be within the capacity market, but that is certainly one of the considerations we will be looking at.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

It is with sadness that I stand here without Harry Harpham in his familiar place. He was my Parliamentary Private Secretary and a much-loved and valued member of the shadow Energy team. Owing to his background, Harry never let us forget that energy is about people. Last month, he told the Yorkshire Post that he would be the last deep coalminer elected to this place. Our promise to Harry is to ensure that the voice of working people remains at the heart of the energy debate. I will miss him enormously. We will never, ever forget him.

The capacity market was supposed to bring forward new investment in gas power stations and ensure that we have enough back-up power stations in case of a power crunch. We know that it has failed on the first count. Now, one of the companies contracted to provide back-up capacity, SSE, has pulled the Fiddlers Ferry power station out of the scheme, throwing the Government’s entire policy into doubt. Will the Secretary of State give the House a guarantee that no other power stations will pull out?

[Amber Rudd]

Before I answer that question, I join the hon. Lady in sharing our condolences from the Conservative Benches on the sad loss of Harry, her friend and able Labour Member of Parliament.

On the capacity market, I reassure the hon. Lady that we are looking at it again to ensure that it delivers the mix of sources. As far as losing old power stations is concerned, she is as aware as I am that these are very old power stations and that it is not surprising that some of them are closing. In our plans for capacity and in our discussions to ensure security, we always plan for a certain amount of closures. We do not feel it is a threat to security of supply, but we take nothing for granted and will never be complacent. We will always make sure we have a secure supply.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Unfortunately, it is not the answer to the question I asked her. No new gas stations have come on stream since the Prime Minister took office. The final investment decision on Hinkley has been delayed yet again. Analysts said recently that renewables investment is about to fall off a cliff. I ask the Secretary of State again: can she confirm that no other power stations will pull out of this scheme?

[Amber Rudd]

I simply do not recognise the picture the hon. Lady portrays. It is, of course, a bit rich for Labour to point that out when it has absolutely no record of planning for the future. We are the Government who are delivering the first nuclear power station. We are the Government who are taking the difficult choices for the next 10 to 15 years. I remind the hon. Lady that the Carrington closed cycle is going to start this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I am impatient to receive the comments of the Competition and Markets Authority. It was predominately to address the difficulties with switching and the difficulties that some consumers find in engaging with the energy market that the Prime Minister referred the energy market, via Ofgem, to the authority. I certainly hope that it comes forward with such suggestions.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Just over a year ago, the Government announced an investigation into whether families should pay less for their energy because of the fall in the wholesale price of gas. The Chancellor told The Telegraph:

“Falling oil and gas prices should bring cheaper household bills”.

A spokesman added that the Government were conducting a series of studies of utility companies to examine whether action was needed. The investigation was backed by the Prime Minister, the then Energy and Climate Change Secretary and the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It was reported that Ministers would be watching the energy companies “like a hawk”. What happened to that study, and what action was taken?

[Amber Rudd]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that we continue to watch the energy companies like a hawk. I am pleased that we continue to see reductions, with two more being announced just this morning, and I hope she will join me in welcoming them. The great news for consumers is that they are not faced with the price freeze that I cannot forget Labour promised last year. If that had happened, none of these reductions would have taken place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are tackling the legacy of under-investment, the failure to deliver the next generation of energy projects and the energy security black hole that were left by the last Labour Government. We are getting on with the job of building a system of energy infrastructure fit for the 21st century. We have made substantial progress in securing infrastructure investment. The UK has enjoyed record levels in the deployment of renewables over recent years and it maintains a healthy energy investment pipeline, as is shown in our national infrastructure plan.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Last week, a Bloomberg report showed that the UK is the biggest beneficiary of European Investment Bank funding for clean energy projects and we are the third largest recipient of the new European fund for strategic investments, which is being spent mostly on energy. Some 70,000 jobs are expected to be created as a result. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is further evidence that Britain should stay in the European Union?

[Amber Rudd]

There are, of course, tremendous benefits from a united energy market, and I am interested and excited to work on the progress of the energy union.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Amber Rudd

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I welcome the concern expressed by Members on both sides of the House for consumers and best value. Last month, the Secretary of State agreed to hand out hundreds of millions of pounds in new public subsidies to diesel and coal power generators through her capacity market scheme. Will she tell the House by how much family energy bills will rise as a consequence?

[Amber Rudd]

The capacity market is specifically designed to ensure that energy security is not negotiable. The Government take energy security very seriously. Because of the lack of investment in energy infrastructure over the past decades, we needed to ensure that the capacity market is in place to ensure that we do not have any problem at all with energy security. Diesel will form a part of the future, but only in very small amounts. Let us remember that it is there as back-up and will be switched on occasionally when it is needed. The addition of the capacity market to people’s bills will be a matter of a few pounds.

[Lisa Nandy]

It is astonishing that the Secretary of State comes to the House and repeatedly says that the Government want to put as little pressure as possible on hard-pressed households, and yet is spectacularly unable to answer a very simple question about how much that will put on family energy bills. In just one day in December, she agreed to subsidise high-polluting diesel generators to the tune of £175 million, paid for by increasing family energy bills. Will she answer this question: are those companies expected to make returns of more than 20% at the expense of bill payers?

[Amber Rudd]

What is astonishing is the hon. Lady’s lack of understanding of the fact that the capacity market is needed because of the Labour Government’s woeful under-investment in infrastructure. We are left with the consequences and need to ensure that energy security is completely reliable. The capacity market is essential to ensuring that that hole is filled. We are proud of the way in which it has delivered—the second auction has just completed. As I have said, it will cost a few pounds—under £10—and we will ensure that energy security will never be in question under this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s update to the House on the actions taken in response to the floods. I particularly welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to set up a cross-Whitehall review of the Government’s approach to flood defences, which will consider the rising flood risk that climate change poses. We know now that the last review in 2014, which was also led by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), met just three times and did not publish a single finding. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she personally attends this committee? Will she tell us whether it has met yet, how often it plans to meet, which independent experts are on it, and what, this time, she expects it to achieve?

[Amber Rudd]

As the hon. Lady will know, the Government take very seriously climate change and its devastating impact in terms of the recent flooding. I can reassure her that the Department participated in regular meetings of Cobra on almost a daily basis to ensure that electricity sources were restored as quickly as possible. The review will take place, and we will keep a careful, watchful eye on ensuring that it does meet and that it looks carefully at what impact it has had.

Climate Change Agreement

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Amber Rudd

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for giving me advance sight of it. I also thank her for paying tribute to successive Secretaries of State on both sides of the House. She is right to recognise that the cross-party consensus that has existed since 2008 helped to build the road to Paris, and gave the United Kingdom its voice in the negotiations. It is a precious legacy for all of us, and we must not allow it to fracture now.

For the first time, leaders from nearly every country in the world have come together to cut carbon pollution and set us on the path to a cleaner, greener future; to agree on a common goal of building a carbon-neutral global economy within a generation; to reduce pollution; and to switch to cleaner energy—and, as the Secretary of State rightly recognised, all countries have agreed to raise their ambition every five years until the job is done. I particularly welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement that the developed world would do its fair share by providing at least $100 billion of finance to assist poorer and more vulnerable countries.

This is a moment to celebrate, not because the agreement is sufficient—we must be honest about the fact that the pledges made by each country do not add up to a commitment that will keep temperature rises well below 2°—but because it gives us enough to take us much, much closer to climate safety, and sends a clear signal to global financial markets that the era of unchecked fossil fuel use is coming to an end.

This accord is testimony to the fact that we are stronger and safer when we work together, both at home and abroad. Our voice has been heard more loudly because we have worked closely with our friends in the European Union and we have spoken together, united and with one voice. Our voice has also been heard because of the hard work and the skills of our lead negotiator, Pete Betts, and his team in the Department for Energy and Climate Change, who worked tirelessly with Sir David King and his team of diplomats in the Foreign Office to secure the agreement. Let me place on record our thanks for what they have achieved. Let me also commend the dedication of the British scientists, campaigners, faith groups, business leaders and civil society organisations who mobilised public support for this global deal. Last month, along with some of my hon. Friends, I joined hundreds of thousands of people to march peacefully through the streets of London, Edinburgh and other major cities around the world, to ensure that our collective voice was heard in the negotiating rooms of Paris.

The question that must now be asked is “What does this deal mean for Britain?” In recent months, the Government have made a series of decisions that have reversed our progress on the road to climate safety. Ministers have attacked the cheapest options for achieving carbon targets, and household energy bills may rise as a result. Last week, during the Paris negotiations, they decided to raise household and energy bills again through the capacity market auction. Hundreds of millions of pounds will go to energy companies to keep open power stations that would have been open anyway. It is difficult to see how that is consistent with what the Secretary of State has said today, and with her claim to be acting to control costs. Will she explain that to the House today?

Ministers have also undermined our progress on carbon capture and storage, which is crucial to ensuring a just transition and support for climate change action from the communities of Britain who work in the important industries that rely on fossil fuels. In Yorkshire and Scotland, communities, scientists and engineers are reeling from the Chancellor’s decision to axe a £1 billion fund for CCS. Can the Secretary of State tell us today that that decision will be reversed?

The Government have wasted no time in blocking new wind farms even where they enjoy strong local support, and have made severe and short-sighted cuts in energy efficiency and solar power schemes. Thousands have lost their jobs, and thousands more could still do so. Millions around the world will go into the coming winter facing the prospect of cold homes and high energy bills, and in this country that is avoidable. The Government’s decisions will cause immense damage to human lives and to the planet.

Following the Prime Minister’s important words in Paris, will the Secretary of State demonstrate to the House that the Government as a whole will listen, and that they will prevent the Green Investment Bank from being sold off in a manner that will remove its green mandate, leaving it free to invest in fossil fuels; cancel the new tax on more efficient vehicles; and stop another tax raid on the renewable energy industry? All those steps will take us backwards on climate change and jeopardise jobs in the industries of the future. It raises this question: what is this Government’s plan for meeting Britain’s climate change commitments? The Government’s own advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, recently warned that existing energy policy is “failing”, and only this morning the CBI called for more clarity for British business. On news of the Paris deal and the goal it contains to limit global temperature rises, its director told the BBC:

“Businesses will want to see domestic policies that demonstrate commitment to this goal”.

So can the Energy Secretary confirm whether her Government’s recent string of green U-turns will now be reviewed in the light of the new assurances we have that every country will play its part in addressing climate change?

Secondly, can the Energy Secretary confirm that the UK will continue to support raising European targets on reducing carbon pollution by 2030, to ensure we are making our fair contribution to the international effort and grasping the maximum potential for our economy from green industries? Finally, will the Energy Secretary ask the independent Committee on Climate Change to review the adequacy of Britain’s existing carbon reduction targets in light of the new internationally agreed goal of limiting global temperature rises to well below 2 °C, and ideally to no more than 1.5 °C?

Two weeks ago the Prime Minister said that when we look back, we will ask

“what was it that was so difficult when the world was in peril?”

The Secretary of State rightly said in her statement to the House that there are no excuses, and I look forward, as do all my hon. Friends, to hearing how she intends to breathe life into this historic landmark agreement.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and welcome her support for the overall global deal. In answering her questions, I would make the following points. First, the UK’s emissions are 1.2% of the world’s, so our emphasis must be on making sure we get an international deal. That is why we were so committed to it. That is why we spent the past week flat-out trying to achieve it, and working to ensure we got China into the deal, which is responsible for 26% of the world’s emissions—more than the EU and the US combined. We remain committed to the Climate Change Act and to making sure we go forward on a low-carbon future, but there is no value in it if we do not actually have influence in the rest of the world. That is what we achieved this week: making sure that that influence was absorbed and taken on, so we reached that agreement—very late on Saturday night.

To answer the hon. Lady’s questions about our position in this country, I repeat that we are committed to the Climate Change Act 2008 and to our goals and our carbon budgets, but the difference between her side of the House and ours is that we will not risk security of supply and we will not put additional costs on consumers. She asks about the capacity markets but I am afraid that her interpretation is wholly wrong. The purpose of the capacity market is to take absolutely no risks with security of supply. That is what we have done, and we are proud of doing that.

In terms of the actions on renewables, this is about ensuring that our consumers pay the right price for the renewables to which we remain committed. As the costs of renewables come down, it is absolutely right that the subsidies come down. It is completely wrong to characterise us as having any negativity about renewables. We remain committed to them, but we will continue to make provision for them at the best value for money.

As far as CCS is concerned, it was a tight spending round in the review with the Treasury. The cost was £1 billion, and we made a decision not to proceed with the fund. I believe that CCS is going to play an important part in decarbonising in the future, particularly industrial CCS, and we will work internationally to make progress on that. Overall, this Government are absolutely committed to a low-carbon future that is value for money and constantly provides security to consumers and families.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Amber Rudd

Thursday 19th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

It is not about one or the other. We intend to meet our targets while achieving the balance of supporting renewable energy and having fossil fuels as part of the mix. That is how we deliver secure, efficient and low-cost electricity nationally.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Thousands of jobs have already gone and thousands more are at risk since this Government slashed support for renewables. Ministers have blocked onshore wind developments, slashed support for solar and are chopping and changing energy policy so often that the CBI says they are deterring potential investors. How many more renewable energy companies must go under—how many more jobs must be lost—before this Government will live up to our international commitments and end this assault on Britain’s clean energy industries?

[Amber Rudd]

It is disappointing that, when talking about clean energy and low carbon, the hon. Lady failed to mention yesterday’s announcement. We are the first large developed country to announce a date for taking off coal. That is a great achievement and it is important as part of our future low carbon emissions. Our plan is for a green economy. We are continuing to develop jobs as well as support manufacturing and industry. I am proud of the direction we are taking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. The more opportunities that we have to raise and draw attention to the opportunities for switching, the better. Switching can indeed save £200 and sometimes more per bill. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and, as I said, we have plans to reach out to people who are not online and to help the most vulnerable. We also had the recent Power to Switch campaign, which led to a significantly increased number of people switching.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I share the right hon. Lady’s sadness at the recent events in Paris, which shocked the world. As world leaders gather in that same city in a few days’ time to address the threat posed to us all by climate change, will she ensure that we use the opportunity to show real leadership and offer hope to people around the world that we, the international community, can come together to address the common threats to our shared security through shared international goals and by increasing our ambition every five years until the job is done?

[Amber Rudd]

I genuinely welcome the hon. Lady’s question, and I am proud of the fact that we in the United Kingdom are united across the political divide in wanting to get an ambitious deal in Paris. I also share the hon. Lady’s view that what we need is not just a deal, but a deal that has five-year reviews as part of it, so that whatever the final deal—I really hope we will get a deal in Paris—we have some way of coming back regularly in order to reflect on the actual emissions, their consequences and perhaps on new technology that might be available to help us all to reduce them.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and particularly for the push she will give to five-year reviews. I also very much welcome the agreement that the G7 leaders reached earlier this year to phase out pollution from fossil fuels by the end of this century and to cut greenhouse gases by between 40% and 70% by 2050 from 2010 levels. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the British Government will continue their support for the Climate Change Act 2008 and will accept the advice due to be given shortly by the independent Committee on Climate Change on what the next round of UK carbon targets—the so-called fifth carbon budget—should be?

[Amber Rudd]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are committed to the Climate Change Act and to working with the Committee on Climate Change to ensure that we stick to the commitments that are enshrined in law and deliver the low-carbon future that we all want.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Amber Rudd

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

The key reason for reining back on onshore wind was its very success. The Government are absolutely committed to supporting renewable sources of energy, and onshore wind has been very successful. On the use of funds that may have been saved, I come back to the point that the Government are committed to staying within the levy control framework budget as far as is possible. That is the key reason we are taking steps to limit spending. Any further spending commitments, as my hon. Friend will be aware, are up to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her kind words. It is a pleasure to speak from the Dispatch Box today and a privilege to follow in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has been a fearless advocate for consumers and the environment in recent years.

My right hon. Friend will be as dismayed as I am that this week it was announced that, for the first time, the UK is no longer one of the top 10 countries in the world for investing in clean energy technologies. The Government have ruled out new onshore wind farms, slashed solar support and left onshore wind farm companies with an uncertain future. The only new nuclear plant that seemed to be proceeding is delayed and in doubt, gas investors do not have the assurances that they need to invest, carbon capture and storage has stalled, and other clean generators have been hit with new taxes. What exactly is the Government’s plan to cut carbon pollution and keep our lights on?

[Amber Rudd]

I, too, am sorry that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) is no longer on the Front Bench. She and I used to have regular, robust exchanges, and she had a realistic approach to energy security, describing nationalisation proposals as “turning the clock back”. How much I agree with her.

The hon. Member for Wigan mentioned investor confidence, but perhaps I may ask her to look within her own team as there are real concerns about the Opposition’s approach to nuclear power—who knows their position ahead? The Government are committed to a mix of energy supply and to ensuring that nuclear power, which she mentioned, is part of that mix. It is so disappointing that under the previous Labour Government there was no planning or looking ahead—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State can leave me to adjudicate on these matters. Her answers must be about the policy of the Government. That is the premise from which we start and with which we proceed.

[Lisa Nandy]

I was going to thank the right hon. Lady for that answer, but I do not think I will.

Investors looking at the UK are scratching their heads. On the one hand the Government say that they are trying to reduce the cost of energy for working families, but on the other hand they say that they want to go for shale gas and CCS, which are unproven markets. We have

“new nuclear build and offshore wind which are substantially more expensive than renewables such as onshore wind and solar PV. Investors don’t know what the government is trying to achieve.”

Those are not my words; those are the words of Ernst and Young’s energy analyst in a report that was published this week. When will the Government return with a plan to keep our lights on, cut pollution, and get energy bills under control?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady is entirely wrong. This Government have a clear plan, and in a way she summed it up in her conclusion. We are committed to ensuring that energy security is at the forefront, to carbon reductions, and above all—a feature that never appears except on the Conservative Benches—to keeping consumer bills down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

The green economy is a fantastically growing opportunity for employment and businesses, and I hope my hon. Friend would agree that it will become even more important if and when we get a deal in Paris, because countries internationally will want to invest in the green economy. They are all making it a priority, as the UK has done.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is meeting her EU counterparts in two days, and she has the Opposition’s full support in negotiating a tough deal ahead of the historic Paris conference later this year. It is clear from recent analysis that the national climate plans do not currently offer sufficient ambition to reach climate safety. She talked about the UK’s being a leader, which was extremely welcome, but what concrete action is she taking to ensure that the UK pushes us further on an international stage and plays a leadership role in the talks in Europe?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady raises one of the most important questions and challenges facing us this year, and I am encouraged to have her support. We are playing a leading role in Europe—I referred earlier to the role I have been playing not just in Europe but internationally to help broker support from the developing and developed countries. It is important to play that role to make sure we get the right outcome, and we continue to be ambitious in the EU, but in truth the EU is committed to this; it is bringing in the other countries that is so challenging.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful for that answer, but the Secretary of State will be aware that, outside this place and in the wider world, there is real fear that we will not reach climate safety through these negotiations. Will she commit to push the EU to go beyond the existing target of a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030, to secure a provision in the agreement that international goals will be increased every five years and to ensure that the UK acts as a force for higher ambition both in Europe and on the international stage?

[Amber Rudd]

May I gently point out to the hon. Lady that it is not the EU that is the issue; it is making sure that the other international large emitters participate in the process? China, for instance, produces 26% of the world’s emissions, which is more than the US and EU combined, so the real challenge is to ensure that we get other countries on board. She is right that we are also pushing for, and hope to get an outcome on, regular reviews. If the final outcome will not put 2° immediately within reach, we need to ensure that the ongoing process—the reviews—does.