Claire Coutinho
MP for East Surrey · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Control room operators at the National Energy System Operator have the life-or-death job of balancing our electricity supply and demand. If they do not get it right, we will have blackouts, and in blackouts, people die; it is that serious. That makes what I am about to say all the more extraordinary.”
“It will not look into whether the grid is being run securely, or whether there was a breach of security standards on 23 June. It does not grant anonymity to any control room operator who wants to come forward. Those who are not selected by NESO management will have to ask those managers if they can participate, if they have concerns.”
“I first raised questions on 2 June. Since then, we have had three public electricity margin notices—warnings to the market that we may be short on supply. I cannot stress enough that this is completely unprecedented. Multiple whistleblowers have now come forward. This, too, is unprecedented. I have raised this matter twice in the House.”
“Last month, I asked the Secretary of State about the risk of blackouts from the increasing instability of our electricity grid, and he accused me of scaremongering. Since then, I can inform the House that I have been contacted by a whistleblower at the heart of our grid operator, the National Energy System Operator.”
“Let us look at the facts: bills went down £500 under me, but they have gone up £300 under him. The Secretary of State said that he has raked in investment, but that is because he has promised that consumers will pay sky-high prices to wind developers for decades to come. He is decimating British industry.”
“According to the press, the Secretary of State is applying for a new job, which means that he must be in need of references. Who will he ask first: the trade unions, who are calling for him to be sacked; the public, who have faced a £300 rise in their energy bills on his watch; or the oil and gas workers, who roundly rejected him at the r…”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Claire Coutinho, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“I will make a bit more progress, because other Members want to get in. We heard a lot this morning about the different factions jostling to replace the Prime Minister, but I have an idea that they can all get behind. I say to the Blue Labour faction, “If you want to protect industry, you need cheaper electricity, so back our cheap power plan.” I say to the Blairites, “If you want to make the most of AI, you need cheaper electricity, so back our cheap power plan.” I say to the soft left, “If you care about lifting people out of poverty and improving living standards, then back our cheap power plan.” Our plan will not just help 6 million households by jacking up the bills for 22 million, which is what the Government are doing—it is what the Minister will no doubt boast about when he talks about the warm home discount.”
“The hon. Gentleman just said that the costs of building more wind and solar farms had not fed through to bills. But if we look at Ofgem’s last price cap, we see that paying wind farms to turn off when it was too windy made bills more expensive. We have spent £1 billion on that this year; by 2030, we are projected to spend £8 billion. That is an enormous added cost. Those are consented wind farms that cannot get into the grid.”
“Labour’s previous definition of “Islamophobia” was adopted by councils that had grooming gang scandals, and it said that even talking about grooming gangs was an example of “anti-Muslim racism”. We know from Louise Casey that public servants did not speak up because they were scared of being called racist. The Government are now bringing in a new definition, but they are refusing to tell the public what is in it. Will the Minister commit to publishing the draft definition, before it is adopted, for full public scrutiny?”
“In January, the Supreme Court ruled that sex means biological sex. This was a huge victory for women’s rights, but now we hear that the Minister is kicking the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s much-needed guidance into the long grass. The law is not changing—the law is as it has always been—so will she release the guidance and make sure that women’s rights are protected?”
“I welcome the new Ministers to the Front Bench. On the first day of recess, away from scrutiny, the Labour party published the prices for its allocation round 7 of the renewables auction. Labour used to say that renewables were nine times cheaper, but the prices that the Secretary of State has said he is willing to pay are 40% higher than the current cost of electricity—they are the highest prices in a decade—and he has extended the contract length to 20 years. Those are not just the prices that we will be paying; they are the prices that our children will be paying. Will the Minister explain how locking us into higher prices for longer will cut bills by £300?”
“The carbon tax on electricity pushes up the cost of gas, wind, solar and nuclear in this country. It does not need to be there—the Secretary of State could axe the carbon tax tomorrow to instantly cut bills for every single family in this country. Why will he not?”
“The Secretary of State is trying to conflate two emissions trading schemes. He does not want to talk about the carbon tax on electricity, because he has increased it by 70% since the start of the year, pushing up everybody’s bills in the process. He is making electricity more expensive at the same time as taxing, banning and bribing people into electric cars and electric home heating—that is totally backwards. He is the worst enemy of a decarbonisation agenda in this country. Our cheap power plan would instantly cut electricity bills by 20%. The Secretary of State could do so tomorrow; what is he waiting for?”
“Giving pen pushers more authority to dictate who is privileged does not create more opportunity or make Britain more fair or prosperous, so we should ask: what message does this send to our children? Do we want them to believe that their future is determined by tick boxes on a form? Do we want them to grow up thinking that fairness means that some doors are closed to them because of their race or sex, or do we want them to live in a country where the law guarantees equal treatment and opportunity for all? It is time to put an end to the social experiment and return to first principles: equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity in life and the belief that the people of this country can rise as far as their talent and determination can take them.”
“They are doing this under the pretence of combating hatred and violence, which are already against the law. Instead of doing the hard graft of breaking down barriers and creating opportunity, Ministers want to hand yet more powers to consultants and HR officials in a undefined race and equality Bill to further shape the world according to who they deem worthy. It is easier, after all, to talk about quotas at diversity conferences than it is to fix entrenched problems in education, geography, family structures and culture. Because it is easier to judge physical characteristics, it risks creating a system that overlooks each individual’s personal circumstances and what they may have overcome.”
“The public see a society where protection is selective, and where the playing field tilts towards those who can claim special status. We heard today calls from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) to have yet more special statuses, but surely, the answer is this: the law that protects me from discrimination should protect my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and his constituents from discrimination, when we are all equal before the law. It is about to get worse, because the Government are set on introducing an Islamophobia definition, which they have tried to do behind closed doors. That will have a chilling effect on the ability of our public services to grasp difficult and sensitive issues, such as grooming gangs, gender inequality or Islamist extremism.”
“In the case of Next, when employees were given the chance, they refused to move to warehouses. The work was deemed of equal value, even when it was clearly not thought to be so by the workers themselves. That is simply absurd. One ruling bankrupted a council, and the other will push up costs for consumers, all because of decisions made by people who are unaccountable. More such cases are on the way. This hierarchy of diversity does not reflect the values upon which this country was built: fairness and merit, judging individuals by their actions and their character, not by their immutable characteristics. We cannot assign innocence or guilt, merit or privilege, by characteristic, placing some groups on a pedestal while others are pushed aside.”
“Who is to say whose adversity has been more of a challenge? How can we fit the whole of human experience into these tidy little boxes? When rights clash, as they do, who gets to choose which group is deemed more worthy? When it came to gender ideology, it was bureaucrats behind closed doors, often working hand in glove with extreme activist groups. When women lost their jobs or were forced to share changing rooms with men, it was HR departments citing the Equality Act who held the pitchforks. Across the NHS, police forces, local councils and Government Departments, it was unelected officials who were using the Equality Act as a weapon to undermine meritocracy. In the cases of Birmingham and Next, it was unaccountable, independent experts who decided that manual shift work was equal to retail and office work.”
“Thanks to the Labour Government, a young person’s opportunity to take their first steps serving this country in the civil service is based not on how hard they work but on what job their parents did when their child was 14 years old. If you are the child of a nurse, cabbie or shopkeeper, I am sorry, but you are just not working class enough—the door is shut to you. In internships up and down the country, including at MI6, young white people have been told they cannot even apply. Here is the problem: the Equality Act has created a hierarchy of diversity. Women are told that their rights are not as important as trans rights. If a white boy grew up in care, had parents were alcoholics or had recovered from a life-changing disease, tough luck—he is not as deserving as an ethnic minority.”
“In seeking to progress equality, these aspects of the Act have changed our culture and taken us backwards. We do not believe that people should be held back from progression because of their protected characteristics, but in the RAF, white male recruits were deliberately blocked from training and given fewer opportunities because of their race and sex. We do not believe that women should be paid less than men for the same work, but in the Department for Education, they are using the Equality Act to justify paying men a thousand pounds more than women for the same jobs in childcare. We do not believe in employing people just because of their race, but senior officers at West Yorkshire police rigged the recruitment process to hire an ethnic minority candidate, who had failed their interview, just to meet a diversity target.”
“It imposed a legal duty on public bodies and private institutions to promote equality based on nine specific characteristics. In turn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford pointed out, that has created an industry that wants to force a statistically perfect division on the basis of sex and race in all parts of society, even though that is impossible to achieve. It encourages us to presume that every disparity is a result of prejudice and to turn even minor workplace differences into legal grievances. Worst of all, unelected officials in our institutions have worked behind closed doors with radical activists, who prescribe social engineering to get equal outcomes, even when it takes a hammer to the British people’s sense of fairness and is against the law.”
“Those were certainly important pieces of legislation, but they serve as a reminder that just as human rights were not created by the Human Rights Act in 1998, equality was not created by the Equality Act in 2010. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), talked about being evidence-based; the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights conducted a review of the public sector equality duty in Scotland and found that “there was virtually no robust evidence of positive change in the lives of people with protected characteristics”. We should not fall into the trap of treating this piece of legislation as flawless or beyond scrutiny just because it speaks to values that we hold dear. The Equality Act did not just bring together discrimination and harassment laws, but went much further.”
“The desire for reason and the belief that we should want for our neighbour what we want for ourselves and that we should be equal before the law have steered us towards being a more meritocratic society than almost any other in the world. I believe in making sure that opportunity can reach people no matter their background, class or circumstances, and I do think that we have some way to go in that regard. However, deep in our national psyche, we believe in judging someone by their character and not by their characteristics. There is a proud legacy of laws passed by Parliament that shows this tendency of ours to protect the few from discrimination or harassment by the many. As many Members have said, the Equality Act 2010 brought together many existing laws on discrimination, including rights for pregnant women and disabled people.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this debate. This issue is having a fundamental impact on our society but is not discussed enough. I associate myself with his remarks about Don’t Divide Us and its excellent report, which I urge everybody to read. We are not a country that divides ourselves into tribe, clan or creed. We do not believe that one sex is more intelligent or more modest than the other. We do not persecute people for their religion or sexuality. At our heart, we are a country built on Christian and enlightenment values and common law.”
“I believe that the hon. Gentleman is talking about discrimination. The point of being equal under the law is that the same protections from discrimination can protect his constituents, the hon. Member for Romford and me. The whole point of our common-law system is that we must all face the same law, whether that is for penalty or in the case of discrimination and harassment. He refers to many of the examples of discrimination and harassment that are in the Equality Act, but they were not created by that Act; they were created decades and decades earlier.”
“I thank the Minister for her speech. Labour Members always try to equate protections against discrimination and harassment with the entirety of the Equality Act but, as many have said, protections against discrimination and harassment existed before the Act. They also exist in many other pieces of legislation, such as the Public Order Act 1986 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. What answer does the Minister have to my questions about the public sector equality duty, which talks about advancing equality by taking specific action to address disproportionate participation? That is where we have seen some internships excluding young white people, for example.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State tried to argue yesterday that he is a climate change believer and everybody else who disagrees with him is a denier, because he does not want to engage with any legitimate criticism of his policies. He is offshoring British industries—in other words, replacing British goods with dirtier imports with higher emissions. Can the Minister confirm what the scientific evidence is that doing so will help to tackle climate change?”
“Yesterday, the Secretary of State said I was hiding when I was, in fact, with my six-month-old baby, who I know he is aware of. On behalf of all young mums who face those kinds of comments in their first few weeks back at work, may I gently suggest he reflects on those remarks? I want to ask the Secretary of State a very simple question: is £82 higher or lower than £72?”
“I do not know whether the Secretary of State does not know or does not want to say, but £72 a megawatt-hour is what electricity cost last year, and £82 is the price he has paid for offshore wind, and he is set to do the same this year—and that is before the extra costs for the grid for wasted wind and back-up, which are going through the roof, thanks to his policies. Yesterday, he committed to radical honesty. In that spirit, will he admit either that he cannot add up, or that his policies cannot bring down bills?”
“The chief executive of Octopus Energy—one of the country’s biggest advocates of renewables—has said that the Secretary of State’s plans mean “soaring costs, locked in for years to come, and more on the way… And the more we build, the worst it gets, for years.” He also said, “It’s brutal for families and crippling for growth.” I think the Secretary of State said in his statement that the biggest problem for businesses is uncertainty, but it is not; it is high energy costs. The second quote—perhaps the most revealing— comes from one of his closest advisers, his chief energy system adviser, who said, “If we procure lots and lots of renewable generation and then we do not build the grid that allows it to get to markets, we will be wasting lots and lots of money.” I could not have put it better myself.”
“All I can say is: I share the feeling! Before repeating all the empty promises about cutting bills by £300, Downing Street might have wanted to ask where his evidence was, but I will ask him now. Will he reinstate that cost of energy work so that we can clearly see the differences between the systems? Will he set out a road map to show exactly how he will lower bills? Will he confirm that he will not sign up to prices in this year’s wind auction that are higher than the current average cost of electricity? Can he also confirm whether he saw a full cost-benefit analysis of the choices in front of him today, and does he share the views of Ofgem and NESO? I will leave the Secretary of State with two quotes.”
“Now we read that we will be paying solar farms to switch off when it is sunny too, and the Office for Budget Responsibility says that green levies will rise by £5 billion. People may have noticed that the Secretary of State used to talk a lot about cheaper energy but now talks about less volatile prices. What his Back Benchers need to realise is that most people would not swap a 4% variable rate mortgage for an 8% fixed one. What they care about is the price of their bills, and they want cheaper prices. If he was truly interested in bringing down bills, he would not have scrapped the analysis that I started last year to find out the true cost of a system dominated by wind and solar. I have now read—twice in one week—that Downing Street is starting to pressure the Secretary of State about when his plans might actually bring down bills.”
“Instead, last year he signed us up to the most expensive wind prices in a decade, at about £86 per megawatt-hour. That is almost 15% higher than the average cost of electricity for the last year, which has been about £74 per megawatt-hour. This year’s prices will probably be the same, if not higher, and he wants to extend those contracts to 20 years. He has not explained how locking us into much higher prices for longer will bring down bills—but lower bills is what he has promised the British public. There is more. The Secretary of State’s plan requires more grid to be built faster than before—that means £74 on to household bills. His plans mean that constraint payments for wind farms to switch off will rise to £8 billion—that means £100 on to bills.”
“A little over a year ago, the Secretary of State told the country that bills would come down by up to £300, but his statement today shows that when push comes to shove he will choose higher bills for the British people to fund profits for renewable energy companies. Worse still, what he did not mention is that today’s announcement means higher bills to pay wind farms billions in constraint payments not to produce energy but simply to switch off. I have warned the Secretary of State repeatedly about the risks of building more wind before grid, and I asked him to continue my work on what a full system cost of energy would look like, which includes the cost of back-up and constraint payments. But he did not listen. He axed that work because he did not want to know what those costs were.”
“On the other hand, I know that he will have had wind developers telling him that if he takes those decisions and makes those choices, they will not be bidding into his auction in the next couple of years—the auctions he needs them to bid into so that he can meet his self-imposed targets—because they want to protect their returns. When faced with a choice between protecting the profits of wind developers and cutting bills for the British people, the Secretary of State has chosen the wind developers, who know that they have him over a barrel. In setting himself an unachievable 2030 target that was based on ideology and ideology alone, he was telling those wind developers that he has to buy whatever they are selling, no matter the price.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I know that this has been a difficult decision for him. He told everyone that his flagship mission was to commission more renewable power than ever before by 2030—more wind than ever before and faster than ever before in a market that was already facing supply-chain challenges and soaring costs. I said at the time that it was completely unfeasible but that if he was going to do it he should take every opportunity to minimise the grid infrastructure that needs to be built and the costs of his plans.”
“Alongside the work of the North Hyde report, can he confirm that he will come back and update the House on his plans to protect the energy resilience of this country?”
“The Secretary of State might prefer to be in Brazil, Baku, Beijing or wherever he is today, but he should be here to explain himself, because as the former head of MI6 said, he is pursuing an energy policy that is “completely crazy” when it comes to national security. I want clean energy from nuclear, from small modular reactors and from the next generation of British innovation, but first and foremost I want energy that keeps the lights on and keeps bills down. This Government are going to leave us completely reliant on foreign imports: from China, from Norway, from Qatar—from anywhere as long as it is not Britain. NESO and Ofgem will do their work, but the Minister must do his work too.”
“If the Secretary of State wants to hand over the keys of our energy supply to the Chinese Communist party, he should come to this House and explain why. We are lucky enough in this country to be surrounded by our own gas fields, but the Secretary of State does not care. This is a man who would rather import gas from Norway, from the very same fields in the North sea that he is banning Britain from using; who is pouring concrete down our gas wells; and who is blocking off any contingency plan that Britain might need in a crisis. I do not say this lightly, but this is a man who is putting our national security at risk. Today we are talking about the first transformer fire in a decade in this country and he did not even bother to turn up. That is the problem.”
“Last year, our intelligence services warned that Chinese state-sponsored hackers were working to disrupt and destroy critical infrastructure in the event of conflict, and yet the Secretary of State is rushing to make Britain dependent on Chinese solar panels, Chinese rare earths and Chinese batteries in just five years’ time. We have just seen China limit the export of critical minerals in its trade war with the US. We have seen kill switches found in Chinese inverters. The US intelligence services have warned us about the risk of surveillance devices in Chinese wind turbines. I first wrote to the Secretary of State eight months ago, asking him to publish an assessment of what his targets mean for our reliance on Chinese imports. He has not even bothered to reply.”
“A week after the blackout hit Heathrow, Spain and Portugal gave us a stark warning of what happens when countries fail to protect their energy security: public transport down, payment systems down and millions of people unable to cook, travel or contact their families. Tragically, people lost their lives. In the case of North Hyde, the blackout affected schools, the London Underground, Hillingdon hospital and 70,000 customers, some of whom had to move out of their homes. That is the price we pay when we do not take energy security seriously. It is not a nice-to-have—energy is a basic need—and yet this Government are putting our energy at risk. The national security strategy that the Government published just last week included 12 mentions of climate but not a single mention of the risk that China poses to our energy system.”
“Secondly, the report says that the North Hyde site did not meet modern standards on physical barriers between transformers. Can the Minister confirm he has asked National Grid to review substations with transformers built before the current standards were put in place? Thirdly, what steps will he take to look at the resilience of our energy system, particularly in the light of the heightened geopolitical risk that we all face? The key message that we should take from the report on the Heathrow blackout is the importance of critical national infrastructure to our energy security and our national security. In that regard, it is the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change who is playing with fire.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I feel older, wiser and significantly more sleep-deprived. I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I also thank NESO for its rapid work. The report is clear that there have been serious failings by National Grid to fix an issue that it knew about for seven years. The Minister is right; that is unacceptable. What is most important, though, is what happens now. I have some questions for the Minister. First, who at National Grid made the decision to defer critical maintenance of the transformer in 2022? He said that he would hold them accountable, so how will he do that? He spoke about breaching licence conditions. What are the penalties for doing that and what accountability mechanisms will he use?”
“The Minister for Women and Equalities has said that background should be no barrier to success, but what message does it send to our young people when they are told that there are some job opportunities they cannot apply for solely based on the colour of their skin? Equality in this country must mean equality of opportunity, not putting some people in society on a pedestal above others, so will the Minister write to all public bodies to make it crystal clear that the state should not be sanctioning race-based hiring policies?”
“Turning a blind eye to the risks faced by vulnerable people in the name of inclusivity is anything but compassionate. We know that cousin marriage significantly increases the risk of birth defects and locks women into coercive relationships. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) has tabled sensible legislation to ban this practice. Why will the Government not support it?”
“The Labour party promised 650,000 jobs through Great British Energy, but the Secretary of State has endorsed a carbon tax of £147 in 2030—double the Department’s current forecast. It would be the highest carbon tax in the world, and devastating for British industry. Can the hon. Lady confirm how many British jobs would be lost as a result?”
“Labour’s policy on the North sea will cost the country £12 billion in tax receipts, which would be enough to cover the winter fuel payment for many, many years. Pensioners will be in the cold this winter, and this is a policy that no other major economy is pursuing. How can the Government possibly justify it?”
“That is not my figure; it is a figure from industry—£12 billion in lost North sea tax receipts, in addition to £8 billion for an energy company that will not generate energy, and at least £200 billion for a 2030 target that we now know will not cut bills. Is it not true that pensioners will be sitting in the cold this winter to pick up the bill for this Secretary of State?”
“He promised them £300 off their energy bills by 2030, but just weeks ago, he whipped his Labour MPs to vote down that pledge. He took away the winter fuel payment, despite promising that the elderly would be looked after under his energy policy, and he now says that he can achieve stronger climate targets in a way that will require zero cost from the public. This is not a recipe for climate leadership, but a recipe for higher bills and lost jobs, and it will be a disaster for the British public.”
“Considering the increase in the target, the public will rightly question why countries such as Russia and particularly China, now the world’s largest polluter and second largest by historical standards, will not be obliged to pay a penny—I think he tried to insist that they would, but it is very clear that they will not be obliged at all to pay in—while Britain, which has invested billions in cutting its emissions and accounts for only 1% of global emissions, will have to pay more. Will the Secretary of State also set out an assessment of the impact of increased reliance on coal-powered Chinese imports for his 2030 zero carbon plans, and of what that means for global emissions? The Secretary of State is not being honest with the British public.”
“We are talking about low growth, high bills, jobs lost and even blackouts, for more carbon in the atmosphere. That is the opposite of what he has been promising. In Baku, while the Secretary of State was signing us up to these targets without talking about what they will do to the lives of British people, he was also signing away billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. He signed us up to a $300 billion annual climate finance target. I am afraid that it is not credible to say that taxpayers will not have to pay more. They will have to pay more, and they deserve to know how much more. Will he tell us today what that new target will mean for British taxpayers?”
“Gentleman wants to build renewables without reforming the grid. The former head of MI6 has warned the Secretary of State— [Interruption.] This is worth listening to. He said that from the point of view of national security, the Secretary of State is pursuing “a completely crazy energy policy”. The Secretary of State’s plans to make our energy expensive and unreliable will see jobs fleeing to more polluting countries, because it is cheap energy and innovation that matter in the race for jobs. We need only ask China, which dominates clean tech supply chains and is the world’s largest polluter. That is where billions of pounds of our taxpayers’ money will be going to pay for his rushed transition—from our country, with all the investment that it has made in clean power, to a country still 60% powered by coal.”
“The National Energy System Operator’s report shows that his rush for clean power in 2030 will add eye-watering costs to our energy system, and that despite those very expensive costs, it would still leave gas pricing the system around 50% of the time—or it would leave the equivalent of millions of homes in the dark waiting for the wind to blow. I do not think that that is anybody’s idea of energy or national security. The Secretary of State does not have to take my word for it. The head of offshore wind development at RWE, one of the country’s largest wind developers, has warned that the Secretary of State’s rush to meet his 2030 target will lead to price spikes, with consumers losing out. The chief executive of Octopus has warned about the £6 billion in costs that consumers will have to pay, because the right hon.”
“However, what we did not hear in his statement is how much this will cost the British people. The independent Climate Change Committee says that that target will require people to eat less meat and dairy, take fewer flights, and swap their boilers for heat pumps and their petrol cars for electric vehicles at a pace that will require taxes and mandation. Even the Chair of the Select Committee has acknowledged that people will be forced to change their lives. But the Secretary of State says not to worry, as he will deliver all the savings through energy policy, and those plans will lead to higher growth, a cut in bills, job creation and stronger national security, but when it comes to his plans, none of those things is true. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has already said that his climate plans will not lead to growth.”
“We are the only major economy to have halved carbon emissions since 1990. In that same time, America’s emissions have stayed the same and China’s have tripled. However, we have seen that countries are not persuaded just by Britain going further, faster; they are persuaded by prosperity, and by living standards. We account for 1% of global emissions, and I fear that if he continues down the path that he has set out, our country will face hardship, and there will be no point in being world-leading because nobody will want to follow our lead. He would make us a warning, not an example to others. Let us start with what the Secretary of State announced at the conference of the parties. He has set out a new target of cutting our greenhouse gas emissions by 81% by 2035.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I echo his comments on Storm Bert and thank the emergency services for all that they have done to help those in need. I start by passing on my personal condolences to the right hon. Gentleman on the passing of John Prescott. I know that he wanted him to lead the Paris accords in 2015, having admired his work in Kyoto, and I believe that, at the time, he described John as good at “bashing heads together”. I hope that, as the Secretary of State’s opposite number, I can achieve some of that head-bashing that he so clearly valued in John. In that vein, the Secretary of State has talked a lot about regaining global leadership, but I fear that he is stuck in 2009. He may not want to acknowledge this, but for the past 14 years, we have been a global leader.”