Energy Bill

Debate between Luciana Berger and Baroness Primarolo

Monday 3rd June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 192, line 9, leave out subsection (4).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 192, line 18, at end insert

‘unless one or more consumers have suffered loss or damage greater than this value.’.

Amendment 4, page 192, line 24, at end insert

‘unless one or more consumers have suffered loss or damage greater than this value.’.

Amendment 5, page 198, line 31, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment 6, page 198, line 40, at end insert

‘unless one or more consumers have suffered loss or damage greater than this value.’.

Amendment 7, page 198, line 46, at end insert

‘unless one or more consumers have suffered loss or damage greater than this value.’.

[Luciana Berger]

Forgive me for the delay in getting to my feet, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was expecting the Minister to go first—I am so used to coming after him.

Amendments 2, 3 and 4 to part 1 of schedule 14 relate to gas customers. Amendments 5, 6 and 7 to part 2 cover electricity consumers. We are proposing these changes for a simple reason: we need to do everything we can to protect consumers who lose out when energy suppliers break the rules. I sincerely hope that Members on both sides of the House agree about that. My right hon. Friend the shadow Energy Secretary called for a system to guarantee compensation to customers who have been ripped off as far back as October 2011, which is a year and a half ago now, so it is nice to see that the Government are finally following our advice and doing something to give redress to consumers.

Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived

Debate between Luciana Berger and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger]

My right hon. Friend will know that if someone goes to a food bank, they must tick a box giving the reason they have to access emergency food aid, and more than 40% say it is because of delays to their benefit payments. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that in an article in The Guardian, Ministers said they aim to ensure that 80% of recipients get benefits within 16 days? Sixteen days is long enough to wait for people who have no cushion or money at all, but what about the 20% of people who have to wait for more than 16 days? Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Interventions should be brief and one at a time. The hon. Lady has made her point.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As well as delays there is the problem of mistakes and people being wrongly sanctioned. Friday before last I met a young man in my constituency who has been sanctioned and told that he will lose benefits for 14 months because he is attending a residential course delivered by the Prince’s Trust. An agreement between Jobcentre Plus and the Prince’s Trust means that people on Prince’s Trust activities are not sanctioned if they are unable to sign on while on a residential activity, but in that case—and, I fear, in others—the agreement is not being properly implemented by the jobcentre.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Luciana Berger and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

The fact that 26 of our schools in Liverpool missed the boat and had their BSF projects cancelled was not due to the bureaucracy to which Government Members keep referring. A detailed reorganisation ensured that we now have the right number of schools for the right number of students in the right areas. We do not need any more schools in Liverpool, but we do need schools with suitable buildings in which young people can learn. It is an absolute disgrace that young people in Liverpool will miss out on those suitable premises on the whim of this untested, untrialled free school process on which there has been no consultation.

May I ask my hon. Friend—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Briefly.

[Luciana Berger]

May I ask my hon. Friend, very briefly, whether he agrees with what was said the other day by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)? The hon. Gentleman said:

“It would be a nonsense to take money that could be used for improving existing schools to create new schools where, on the ground, the will of the local community is for the existing schools to continue.”