Claire Coutinho MP: Climate Timeline

• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Claire Coutinho's Climate-related Tweets, Speeches & Votes

We've found the following climate-related tweets, speeches & votes by Claire Coutinho in the last 90 days

See Full History

• 14 Jan 2025: Tweet

  RT @AndrewBowie_MP: Labour's rush to Net Zero means Britain 'on brink of blackouts' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14280271/Labours-Net-Zero-Britain-teetering-brink-blackouts.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton [Source]

• 13 Jan 2025: Tweet

  And another letter from November, this time with questions about the impact of the highest carbon tax in the world on British industry. Again, no response. https://twitter.com/clairecoutinho/status/1859991420293227003 [Source]

• 10 Jan 2025: Tweet

  RT @RobertJenrick: Why is Ed Miliband hiding the true cost of renewable energy? [Source]

• 09 Jan 2025: Tweet

  Last year I set out plans for more gas power plants and the largest expansion of nuclear in 70 years, but this has all been ditched by Labour. We were widely criticised for starting a Net Zero reset, but we need cheap, reliable energy. [Source]

• 04 Jan 2025: Tweet

  But China is the world’s worst polluter. So this is bad for British energy security, bad for British jobs and bad for global emissions. We began a net zero reset last year. The climate lobby sued us(!) But we have to bring back common sense to our energy/climate plans. https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1875480912168939651/photo/1 [Source]

• 04 Jan 2025: Tweet

  We know that Labour donor (formerly a Just Stop Oil donor) Dale Vince is uber relaxed about us shipping in kit from China because he told Andrew Neil earlier this year. This is a view that I have encountered many times from the climate change lobby. https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1875480113351119023/photo/1 [Source]

• 03 Jan 2025: Tweet

  RT @EdConwaySky: ????There may now be only a 3% chance of meeting net zero & meeting the 1.5ºC climate target, says independent analyst @energ… [Source]

• 28 Dec 2024: Tweet

  The biggest myth we’ve been told about climate change that it is now simply a challenge of implementing the tech we know. It’s not, it’s about innovation. The world’s first carbon-14 diamond battery was made by @UKAEAofficial and @BristolUni. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/diamonds-are-forever-world-first-carbon-14-diamond-battery-made [Source]

• 23 Dec 2024: Tweet

  RT @JamesMelville: Congratulations to Ed Miliband. His drive towards net zero will create 170,000 jobs…in China. https://x.com/JamesMelville/status/1870778769222381830/photo/1 [Source]

• 18 Dec 2024: Tweet

  Here's my letter with further questions. The hundreds of workers in our refineries, chemicals and manufacturing industries deserve answers. Either they lose their jobs because of the carbon tax or because of higher energy prices. Labour’s plans are LOSE LOSE for industry. https://twitter.com/clairecoutinho/status/1859991420293227003 [Source]

• 18 Dec 2024: Tweet

  The only way their system costs roughly the same in 2030 is if they assume a carbon tax of £147 - double her own Department’s forecasts! Otherwise it’s much more expensive. https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1869302780420313346/photo/1 [Source]

• 18 Dec 2024: Tweet

  Oh dear. Either Labour is pursuing the highest carbon tax in the world which would kill British industry. Or they're lying about the costs of their energy plans. Which is it? https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1869302767954927899/video/1 [Source]

• 18 Dec 2024: Tweet

  This is an important read.???????? The Govt plans will mean importing more steel, batteries, wind turbines, solar panels from coal-powered China. Their Clean Power Plans assume they impose the highest carbon tax *in the world* on our industry, which again will just move production from UK to China and places like it. This would mean less jobs in Britain, for MORE carbon in the atmosphere. This is where a myopic focus on our domestic emissions, misses the fact we’d be making global emissi [Source]

• 17 Dec 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  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?

  Full debate: Great British Energy: Job Creation

• 05 Dec 2024: Tweet

  RT @NJ_Timothy: ????Climbdown alert!???? Starmer has gone from promising to decarbonise the grid 100% by 2030 to a new 95% target. Maybe he’s… [Source]

• 03 Dec 2024: Tweet

  More and more people are sounding the alarm that the NESO report shows Ed Miliband’s rush to decarbonise the grid by 2030 will increase bills. The question is, why are so many of the ‘independent’ energy ecosystem so quiet? Why did Ember not come out during the election and say Ed Miliband was misusing their figures when he promised he could cut bills by £300? (Spoiler alert: he can’t.) Where are the many other trade bodies, institutions and industry experts who have been saying ‘r [Source]

• 30 Nov 2024: Tweet

  As a reminder, here’s how much their 2030 target (which will lead to much higher bills) will get you off gas pricing. From roughly 60% of the time to 50% of the time. And that blue block is gas + CCUS, i.e. much more expensive. https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1862787376373793108/photo/1 [Source]

• 26 Nov 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  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. 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. 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.

  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? 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. 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.

  Let me give the shadow Secretary of State a little lesson about opposition. The job of the Opposition is to oppose the Government, not to oppose themselves. This is where she has ended up: out the window goes any commitment to climate action. She is ignoring the fact that it is a route to energy security, good jobs and lower bills, ignoring the fact that it is backed by business, and ignoring the fact that this country has an honourable tradition of bipartisan consensus on the issue. I am happy to say that the previous Government proposed some ambitious targets, and that COP26 was an important milestone for the world. This is not just irresponsible, and not just crass opportunism; it has helped take the Conservative party down to its worst election defeat in 200 years, so this approach will not work for her.

  Let me tell the shadow Secretary of State what the clean energy superpower mission means for Britain. It means cleaning up our power system, so that we do not leave the country exposed to fossil fuels, as the previous Government did. It means new jobs in carbon capture and storage as we decarbonise industry and re-industrialise. It means energy efficiency in homes, meaning lower bills, warmer homes and lower emissions. As for the NESO report that she talked about, I know that it is deeply disappointing to her, but we have an independent report that says that 2030 is achievable—she said that it was not. It also says that it will give us energy security—she says that it will not. It also says that it can lead to lower electricity, which she constantly denies.

  I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

  May I gently say to the shadow Secretary of State that she really should not believe dodgy headlines in The Daily Telegraph ? In fact, I am not sure whether headlines in The Daily Telegraph are ever not dodgy, based on what she was quoting. More importantly, though, let me congratulate the Prime Minister on his leadership at the conference of the parties, and the Secretary of State on leading the negotiations, and not least on delivering the £300 billion of climate finance for developing countries. He set out this country’s achievement since the general election; to what extent will the combination of what this country showed at COP and what we have delivered at home since 4 July encourage countries around the world to play their part in addressing the climate crisis?

  My hon. Friend asks an important question. Two truths came out of COP: first, the transition is unstoppable and, secondly, it is not going fast enough. There is such a difference from a decade ago—my hon. Friend, who was there with me, is nodding in agreement—because every country knows that the climate crisis is happening and is affecting them. The testimony I heard was like the testimony that we could provide about what people are seeing. Every country knows they have to act, and while they all face constraints in acting, they also know—this is the big change from a decade ago—that it is massively in their economic interests. There is a race on for the good jobs of the future, and the clean energy transition can provide them.

  COP29 concluded with a deal that, while welcome, leaves much to be desired. I must stress that we need bolder, more decisive action if we are to face the greatest challenge of our time: the climate crisis. I know that the right hon. Gentleman’s heart is in the right place and has been for many years. We first met in the run-up to COP15 in 2009, and I express my thanks to him for his staunch leadership in the intervening years. I express Lib Dem support for a brave programme of action going forward and our willingness to work with his Department to help the UK step up and seize this opportunity for climate leadership.

  In my South Cotswolds constituency and all across the UK, we have seen at first hand the devastating effects of climate change, and never more so than over the last few days, with floods and storms becoming more frequent and severe. Towns and villages in my constituency, such as Purton, Great Somerford and Cirencester, have been severely affected by flooding, and we need urgent action now to mitigate climate change and help our communities adapt to the likely impacts now and in the future.

  I associate myself with the thanks already expressed to the brave men and women of our emergency services in the aftermath of Storm Bert. Climate leadership must prioritise solutions that protect communities and restore nature. Natural flood defences, such as wetlands—

  May I finish with a question? Will the Secretary of State commit to including natural flood defences as a central part of the £5.2 billion flood defence spending to ensure that communities like those in the South Cotswolds are better protected from the worsening impacts of climate change while addressing biodiversity loss?

  Let me pick out a couple of the points she made. First, the point about the devastating effects of the climate crisis already being apparent is important. Part of the danger is that those effects will end up being the new normal, and we will just think of them as part of life. They are part of life in a sense and, as she said, we need the right flood defences in place and so on, but we also need to realise that those effects will get significantly worse if we do not act. Future generations will, frankly, hold us in infamy, saying, “You knew about the scale of the devastation and had seen a preview of what was to come, and you decided you couldn’t act,” so she is absolutely right.

  I will make one more point, which is part of what the hon. Lady was saying: this is a climate crisis and a nature crisis. It is a climate and biodiversity crisis. It was a bit disappointing that the nature part of the agenda at COP did not get the attention it deserved, and that will be important for COP30 in Brazil.

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today and the agreement reached at COP29 in Baku. He and I go back a long way on COP, so we know what it is like when it goes wrong. I particularly welcome the nationally determined contribution to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 81% by 2035. Does he agree that the fundamental reason we have leadership on the global stage now, as distinct from what we have had for the past 14 years, is not just because of the target, but because we have a plan? This COP was supposed to be about implementation, and where we lead on implementation, others will follow.

  I can only speak for North Norfolk, but a green energy future is exciting for our local economy, especially at Bacton. Just along the coast, villages like Happisburgh are suffering from being part of the fastest eroding coastline in Europe. The Secretary of State touched on coastal erosion in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), but can I push him specifically on how the outcomes of COP will provide reassurance to my residents who are worried about losing their homes to coastal erosion now?

  As far as COP29 is concerned, we are speeding up global action. As I described in my statement, this finance deal could mean a reduction equivalent to 15 times the emissions of Britain. That is hard going, but it is the way to reduce the temperature rises that will take place. The world is in danger of busting through 1.5°C and going beyond that. That is why action is so urgent and why this finance deal really matters.

  COP leaders agreed to triple climate finance to $300 billion a year. The Secretary of State referred to the spending review in his statement, but the Prime Minister signed up to that international commitment. The Secretary of State must know how much the UK will have to pay. Will he tell the House?

  I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. My constituency is at the mercy of climate change, as the floods showed at the weekend. It is deeply frustrating for many of my constituents to hear the Opposition fail to grasp the urgency. We are on the frontline of the impact of climate change, but we also want to be on the frontline of the response, so many of my constituents welcome the warm homes plan. What is he doing to ensure that we have the workforce to deliver that plan, particularly in constituencies such as mine that have houses that are quite hard to retrofit?

  We learned three things from the statement. The first is that the climate finance will come from the existing UK aid budget. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that the increase in the UK aid budget will be greater than the amount that has gone on climate finance, so that we can be confident that we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul in the developed world? Do the important agreements on deforestation mean that the UK will stop spending almost £11 billion on subsidies to burn trees in England to generate electricity—is that one of the important elements that he talked about on deforestation? He claimed in his statement that GB Energy is set up. Can he tell us where we can go and see it? [ Laughter. ]

  Thanks so much for the support. Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s questions in turn. It has always been the case that climate finance is part of the aid budget—that is not some new announcement I have made. Obviously, that is a decision that we make, along with the Foreign Office and other colleagues across Government, about the right balance of resources and where the need is greatest.

  The Secretary of State was absolutely right to say at the close of the climate talks that the only way to keep the British people safe from extreme weather and economic disruption is to ensure that the world acts together. That requires funding, but it is clear that the COP in Azerbaijan did not deliver that at the scale needed. The Make Polluters Pay coalition is calling for the big oil companies worldwide, which have made grotesque profits while driving the climate crisis, to fund the required investment at home and abroad. Is that not the fair way to secure the necessary finance?

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and agree that the UK must show global leadership on climate action. Peatlands are the largest natural terrestrial carbon store, yet damaged peatlands are responsible for almost 5% of global anthropogenic CO 2 emissions. The UK imports 60% of peat used in horticulture, offshoring carbon emissions abroad. Does the Secretary of State agree that, beyond COP29, we must continue to show global leadership and protect the environment by committing to a phased ban on peat in horticulture?

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I was proud of the constructive role that the UK played in the negotiations, representing our country and also some of the poorest people on the planet, who are at the absolute frontline of climate change, partly due to the emissions from this country. But COP is not without its critics, despite it being the only platform to progress our climate ambitions. How does the Secretary of State think that the process could be improved? In particular, what gentle advice would he give to anyone thinking about taking over the presidency of a major world economy early next year?

  I will resist the second half of my hon. Friend’s question, if you don’t mind, Mr Speaker. On the first part of his question, the COP process does have its critics, so I will say a couple of things. First, 15 years ago, when I last attended the COP as Secretary of State in Copenhagen, no country was signed up to net zero. Now, 90% of the world’s GDP is covered by net zero. That is not only because of the COP, but that process of international engagement is important, and it is a forcing mechanism to put world leaders on the spot. Secondly, the reason why it is hard is largely because we have 198 countries all trying to agree, which is difficult. If people can think of improvements to the system, that is great, but that engagement is really important.

  The right hon. Gentleman and I have been debating these issues for 15 years, and I hazard a guess that we will not end up agreeing. The truth about the climate crisis is that it is the biggest potential cost that future generations can face. There will be trillions of costs across the world and tens and hundreds of billions of costs in the UK if we do not act. All the evidence is that the costs of acting on climate change are much lower than the costs of not acting.

  I was in Paris nine years ago when we started the process of negotiation on article 6 of the Paris agreement, which was concluded only with the gavel going down in Baku. It is an important process, ensuring a carbon market through the United Nations framework convention on climate change. How will the UK implement the new article 6 regulations? How will we support other countries in this important work, as we can utilise it for nature-based solutions such as reforestation and afforestation?

  Where is the leadership, and what example does it set, in flying 470 officials and delegates—more than any other western European country—halfway across the world to a climate change jamboree? Can the Secretary of State say what the cost has been in terms of carbon and cash?

  Both the points that my hon. Friend makes are right. I am happy to acknowledge the role of Theresa May in putting net zero into law, as well as that of Alok Sharma and even Boris Johnson, who fought to champion some of these issues. It is a real shame, and it speaks volumes, that we can say those things and the Conservatives do not.

  I commend the Energy Secretary on his work, both in the UK and his global leadership at COP29. Many developing countries continue to face the intensifying effects of the climate crisis. For their sake and for ours, we cannot afford inaction and delay. Can the Secretary of State clarify what specific work will be undertaken to improve global ambitions so that we can transition away from fossil fuels and keep alive the commitment to keep the world’s temperature rise below 1.5°C?

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the leadership that this Government showed at COP29, recognising that with the global transition under way, the economic benefits will accrue to those who lead and shape it, rather than shy away from it and remain all too passive in the face of the economic forces that it heralds. Can the Secretary of State set out how we will ensure that we capture those benefits domestically and show the necessary leadership to drive investment, growth and opportunity to every part of the UK, so that we have a coherent economic strategy that touches every part of our nation?

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his clear global leadership on this issue over many years. A constituent, Michael Jones—a leader in climate change education—attended Baku as part of the COP delegation with a delegation of students from across the UK as part of the climate change challenge, leading on efforts to educate policymakers on the impacts of climate change on the next generation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the next generation deserve better and a Government who—unlike the Opposition, who flip-flop and show no consistency on the issue—have a firm commitment to deliver a reduction in emissions with the international community?

  Full debate: COP29

• 23 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Labour’s rush to decarbonise will mean a Made in China transition. Billions of pounds of taxpayers money and thousands of British jobs will flow to the world’s largest polluter, all in the name of climate change. Read more ???????? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/23/milibands-promises-of-cheap-and-easy-energy-dont-add-up/ [Source]

• 22 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Ed Miliband has claimed his rush to decarbonise the grid by 2030 will cut bills. Yet the NESO report throws up some alarming questions. He has refused to come to the House to defend the report - but the public deserve answers. My letter to Ed Miliband???????? https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1859991420293227003/photo/1 [Source]

• 21 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Jesse is right. Ed Miliband should come to the House to debate the NESO report. Ed claims the report proves his plans to decarbonise the grid by 2030 can cut bills - but that’s not what the report says. This is as important as it gets for living standards. https://twitter.com/jesse_norman/status/1859627703810302109 [Source]

• 21 Nov 2024: Tweet

  The climate change lobby have been itching to get this on the statute book for years because it uses higher costs to force people to buy heat pumps. [Source]

• 19 Nov 2024: Tweet

  RT @DrSimEvans: +++NEW ANALYSIS: China’s CO2 emissions have now caused more global warming than EU+++ Our new analysis comes as the "princ… [Source]

• 14 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Starmer is pushing ever higher climate targets for Britain - raising prices and exporting jobs - in return for more imports from coal-powered China, the world’s largest polluter. Labour must publish an assessment of the increased reliance on China and resulting carbon emissions. https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1857052757816967343/video/1 [Source]

• 13 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Mad. Even the Climate Change Committee says we’ll be using oil and gas in 2050. Why get ‘emotional’? Because 200k British jobs are on the line. £12bn tax revenue which is now being squeezed out of pensioners, farmers and business instead. All for imports with MORE emissions. https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1856449061705937032 [Source]

• 13 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Keir Starmer is signing us up to climate targets that will likely require huge sacrifices from the British people. At the same time, he’s saying he won’t tell people how to live their lives. Those two things cannot be true at the same time. https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/1856615740582805853/video/1 [Source]

• 12 Nov 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  The Prime Minister is set to announce at the conference of the parties that he is making the UK’s already stringent carbon emission targets even higher. That is despite the fact that we contribute only 1% of global emissions, while the leaders of the world’s highest-emitting countries—making up over 60% of emissions—are not attending. The Climate Change Committee has said that this target will require, for example, an accelerated shift away from meat and dairy, less travel and a gas boiler ban for the British people, yet the Government’s approach would see our reliance on imports from China—which is 60% powered by coal—go through the roof. Does the Minister agree that an approach that is asking for more sacrifice and hardship from the British people, in return for more goods from one of the world’s largest carbon emitters, would mean fewer jobs in Britain and more carbon in the atmosphere?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 10 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Interesting, @thetimes asks readers whether they think Ed Miliband’s net zero plans are realistic. Over 90% don’t. The public can see what Labour politicians seemingly cannot. The question is, how much damage will they do before they course correct? https://www.thetimes.com/article/0da9968b-1d18-42fc-8592-1434516cf231?shareToken=bb1dd5507301a6f12ac3de09f77d4770 https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1855656433351860350/photo/1 [Source]

• 05 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Next, Ed’s entire premise is that by ‘getting off gas’ we will make energy cheaper. But the NESO’s modelling shows in the CCUS pathway, gas will price the system as much as 47% of the time. That’s not ‘getting away from international gas markets’, nor ‘100% clean power’, is it? It would also be a pricier form of natural gas (CCS) 31% of the time. [Source]

• 05 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Today @neso_energy published the advice that @Ed_Miliband commissioned on his target to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030. I am disappointed but not surprised that he has not come to the House to answer our questions. Because it poses very difficult questions for Labour… https://twitter.com/neso_energy/status/1853693955898057160 [Source]

• 04 Nov 2024: Tweet

  On days like these, if not gas then what? If gas then it should come from Britain. We get c. 50% of our gas supply from the North Sea. Labour will leave us reliant on foreign imports. (If CCUS or hydrogen then the first still needs gas, and both are more expensive). https://twitter.com/kathrynporter26/status/1853224701289443390 [Source]

• 02 Nov 2024: Tweet

  As I said in the House last week, far from bringing bills down, Ed Miliband’s plans to ramp up renewables at breakneck speed are sending bills up. The IFS agrees. Industry will just go abroad (worse for climate change) and households will be poorer. https://www.thetimes.com/article/4f27fdaf-8b7d-4ad9-ab30-164b80a7d545?shareToken=2ef8886656dd35e9d8caa017fab1aea1 https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1852601383301640455/photo/1 [Source]

• 31 Oct 2024: Tweet

  RT @GaiaFawkes: IFS Chief: Net Zero Splurge Doesn't Help Growth at All http://order-order.com/2024/10/31/ifs-chief-net-zero-splurge-doesnt-help-growth-at-all/ https://x.com/GaiaFawkes/status/1851975609951334872/photo/1 [Source]

• 29 Oct 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  New clause 3— Prohibition of investments which would increase greenhouse gas emissions —

  (a) greenhouse gas emissions and

  (2) Where the assessment carried out under subsection (1) showed that the investment was expected to contribute to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, Great British Energy must not make that investment.”

  This new clause would require Great British Energy to publish an assessment of potential investments on greenhouse gas emissions and the production or combustion of fossil fuels. Any investment which the assessment showed was expected to increase greenhouse gas emissions would be prohibited.

  (f) the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.”

  This amendment would set objects for Great British Energy of facilitating, encouraging and participating in an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes, and the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.

  “(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to require any renewable energy development located in Wales that Great British Energy owns or invests into offer a minimum of 10% community and 10% local ownership for each project.”

  This amendment seeks to ensure that all renewable energy projects in Wales which are owned or invested in by Great British Energy would be required to offer a 10% stake in community ownership i.e. for individuals and households, and a 10% stake of local ownership, i.e. any Wales-based organisation.

  These were not one-off promises; it was the party line, as dictated by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. These promises are still up in writing. In fact, the Labour party website still says that its energy plans will cut bills by £300 on average. Oddly, Ministers now do not seem so keen on that pledge. We have asked them about it in this House, as have the media, but the number seems to have vanished. They have even taken down the Great British Energy website, and the newly appointed chair even said in Committee that cutting bills is

  The Secretary of State can talk about skills passports and Government transition projects all he likes, but the truth is that they do not pay the bills. He likes to say that we need to cut carbon at an extreme pace, faster than any other major economy, in order to show climate leadership and save the planet, but if our gas production, steelmaking or energy-intensive manufacturing moves to Asia, which is still powered by coal, he will be adding to emissions. That would mean more carbon in the atmosphere, and would be devastating for the hundreds of thousands of people who would lose their livelihoods here in Britain. I say that as someone who, before entering Parliament, worked on regenerating some of our most deprived communities once the jobs were gone.

  As I have said previously, Great British Energy is pretty much a carbon copy of the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was set up to provide loans, equity and guarantees for infrastructure to tackle climate change, backed by £22 billion. No Minister has been able to tell us the real difference between Great British Energy and the UK Infrastructure Bank, or why the taxpayer has to pay for two headquarters, two chief executives and so on. The one difference appears to be that Great British Energy will mean additional powers for the Secretary of State.

  Full debate: Great British Energy Bill