Claire Coutinho MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I will make this point. When I wrote to the Climate Change Committee asking it to look at this matter, it sent me a dismissive reply. So I wrote about it in a newspaper. What did the committee do? It reported me—a democratically elected politician—under the Independent Press Standards Organisation editors’ code and tried to get me to remove my opinion. I did not. Just a few months later, the Government updated their own costings, not to £80 per megawatt-hour or even to £90 per megawatt-hour, but to over £100 per megawatt-hour. That is the Minister’s own figure. That means that not only was I right, but offshore wind was now predicted to cost three times what the Climate Change Committee had said. I do not know which is worse: that we are making huge decisions on the basis of such poor analysis, that nobody on the Government Benches thinks that this warrants any scrutiny, or that an unelected advisory body is using taxpayers’ funds to try to silence elected representatives rather than focusing on getting its costings right. Everybody in this House should think that is shameful. If the committee was wrong by a factor of three on offshore wind—something that we have better evidence for than pretty much anything else in the market—how can we trust any of the rest of its analysis? Let us look at some of the committee’s claims. It claims that a low-carbon electricity supply is “cheaper per unit” than high-carbon electricity. Well, if your numbers are out by a factor of three, perhaps you might think that. It also says that “most businesses will not be…affected by Net Zero”, particularly in the services sector. How does it justify that? Let me assure the House, if net zero blocks the advance of AI in this country, that will have a catastrophic impact on our services sector. Here is another claim: “a reduction in meat…and dairy” will mean a healthier diet. Who are they to tell us what to eat and to give us nutritional advice? The committee makes claim after claim and sweeping statement after sweeping statement with nobody holding it accountable. Yet this advice—this target—will affect almost every part of normal life. Hon. Members may argue that we need strict climate targets to provide certainty for jobs—that is what the Minister just said—but that is nonsense. The country doing the best at creating clean tech jobs is China, which is now the world’s largest polluter. Hon. Members may also say that this is about our moral duty to fix climate change, but I will remind them that every time a British factory shuts here, where we have some of the cleanest electricity in the world, and we import those same goods back from coal-powered China, we are not helping climate change; instead, we are increasing global emissions. Before Labour Members get on their high horse, I will remind them that the Conservatives are the only party to call for the measurement of the offshoring of emissions. Labour does not want to know because it does not care. Here is the problem: Labour Members do not want to properly measure whether we are just trading emissions here for emissions abroad because they do not really care whether this target is actually good for the worker, or good for jobs, or good for the cost of living, or good for the environment. That is why none of them cared to read the impact assessment.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  He used up his chance; he should have asked a better question. There are some parts of this work that I welcome. The Fingleton review is impressive. I thank those involved and, as I have made clear before, we will support that work going forward. Nuclear is the only form of energy that can provide round-the-clock, totally clean power, and I will always support policies that make it as easy as possible to build. There is a catch, however. The Secretary of State says he wants to ease nuclear regulations while, at the very same time, he has cancelled the project that they would be used on. By cancelling the third large-scale nuclear power station that I signed off, he has killed the nuclear pipeline. He is repeating his own mistakes. We are set to have yet another Labour Government who fail to start a single new large-scale nuclear power plant, and now we hear that Natural England is adding yet more delays to Hinkley Point C for little environmental gain. Is he fighting that? No. He is defending the status quo. By the end of this Parliament we will still be waiting for a decision as to whether small modular reactors will go ahead, by 2030 there will be less nuclear online than there is now, and in 2035, which is 10 years away, the Government still will not have started any new large-scale nuclear power plants in this country. That is the same old stop-start approach that killed the industry to begin with. If that is what the Secretary of State calls being ambitious for nuclear, he needs to give his head a wobble.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment (i), at the end of the Question to add: “but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech commits to banning the issuance of licences to explore new oil and gas fields; recognise that this proposal will have a particularly negative impact on Aberdeen, the North East of Scotland and the wider UK economy; believe instead the Government must approve the Rosebank oil field and the Jackdaw gas field, which would boost UK energy security; urge the Government to drop its opposition to new oil and gas licences and instead legislate for a presumption in favour of approving new licences, and permit the exporting of oil and gas technology overseas; further regret the cancellation of a third large-scale nuclear power plant at Wylfa; and further urge the Government to abolish the ‘carbon tax’ regime to avoid more refinery closures, protect the domestic supply of refined products, and reduce the tax burden on UK industry.” This may be our last meeting across the Dispatch Box, because the Secretary of State is once again on manoeuvres. Considering that he is gunning for a promotion, let us review his record, shall we? He promised in the election that he would cut everybody’s energy bills by £300. What has he delivered? Energy bills are up by £200 thanks to his plans. He said that he would protect pensioners, but weeks into office he axed the winter fuel payment—a policy that many Labour MPs have cited as their worst political decision in power. The Secretary of State promised that Great British Energy would lead to a mind-blowing reduction in bills. Yet, two years in, it has not taken a penny off household bills, but has given a six-figure salary to one of his mates. Now, we learn that Great British Energy has been putting solar panels, made by Chinese slave labour, on British primary schools—something that the Secretary of State promised to this House that he would not do. What is next? Oh, that’s right: the Secretary of State said that he could control the price of wind. However, his botched wind auction signed us up to the highest prices in a decade—way more than the cost of electricity that he inherited. Promise after broken promise, bills up, pensioners betrayed, six-figure salaries for his mates and eye-watering contracts for wind developers—now, to top it all off, a so-called energy independence Bill that would shut down the North sea, in the greatest act of industrial self-harm in a generation. If that is what gets someone a promotion in the Labour party, Lord help us all. Let us turn to the so-called energy independence Bill. For true energy independence, we need our own oil and gas, but the Bill enforces the wilful destruction of the North sea. We need our own petrol, diesel and jet fuel, but the Bill does nothing to save our refineries, which are being taxed into oblivion. We need an electricity system that keeps the lights on for British households and industry, but his plan will leave us at the mercy of foreign imports. That is not independence; it doesn’t even come close. It is an energy dependence Bill that would leave us weaker, poorer and more reliant on foreign regimes.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I think those are the strongest words I have heard from the hon. Member in my entire time in Parliament, and the Government would be wise to heed them. At the moment, we share the same basin with Norway. Last year, Norway drilled 46 new wells and made 21 new discoveries, while we drilled zero wells for the first time since 1964. This is exactly the same basin. There is not a geological difference; it is a political line drawn down the middle. It is quite clear that it is the approach of Labour and the Secretary of State that is driving the industry into the ground.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In the case of Gorton and Denton, we heard this week that the Muslim Vote has decided to endorse the Green party. This is overt sectarism in our midst, and we know that where we have sectarian politics, conflict and strife follow. Even one of Labour’s candidates at the last election was threatened with beheading, but nobody in the Labour party seems to be able to confront this problem. Will the Secretary of State call it out for what it is—sectarian politics that has no place in Britain?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is freezing cold outside, and people are worried about their energy bills, yet on top of all the other costs the Secretary of State has lumped on to people’s bills, it is reported that he is about to tax people with gas boilers to pay for people having heat pumps. Can he definitively rule this out for the rest of this Parliament: no new taxes on people heating their homes?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The rumours are that the Secretary of State is pitching himself to be the next Chancellor. He did not rule out taxes on people heating their homes for this Parliament, he is shutting down the North sea, there is a disastrous EU energy deal and a secret deal with China, the industry is fleeing in its droves and energy bills have risen five times on his watch. Does this not show that he has to be the only person in the country who could do a worse job than the current Chancellor?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to what Martin Lewis says about the hon. Gentleman’s party’s policies in a second. Labour promised £300 off energy bills, but bills have gone up by £200 instead. Going by his own election promise, the Secretary of State owes the public a £500 cut. Why have those bills gone up? It is because of the costs introduced by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it—they can just listen to Martin Lewis, who says that wholesale prices have plummeted but energy bills are up because there are countless costs landing on those bills thanks to the Secretary of State— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) wanted to talk about Martin Lewis a second ago but he does not want to hear about him now. Among those costs are the cost of backing up wind farms and switching them off when it is too windy, all the grid costs that are multiple times higher because of the system that Labour is creating, the warm home discount that everyone is paying for through their bills, the carbon tax that has gone up by 70% this year, and the tax on gas to pay for hydrogen that is coming in January. I am not sure whether Labour Back Benchers know about all these costs, but they add up to hundreds of pounds extra. No wonder the Secretary of State never did a costing; he did not want anyone to know the truth. He is piling hundreds and hundreds of pounds on to energy bills, and now he wants a round of applause for this £150 off them.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an impassioned case, but why did Government Members not make it at the election? Why did the Government remove the Whip from seven Labour MPs who voted against keeping the cap last year? Why did the Government make all Labour MPs vote to keep the cap, including the Secretary of State? That is the question that Members need to ask. The Government want to be known for having helped people with the cost of living. They must think that the public are stupid. Everyone out there can see that everything that the Government are doing is making the cost of living worse. They do not understand the basics, and the situation is apparently so bad that No. 10 has been giving Back Benchers lessons about Government debt. Given that we have seen Labour Back Benchers cheer at two job-killing Budgets, perhaps the Government need to expand the curriculum.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  We have a fundamental difference in belief. Labour Members believe the best way out of poverty is welfare; I think the best way is jobs and growth, but the Government are killing those things. The problem with the Labour party, as we can see from its policies, is that it clearly thinks the only answer to the cost of living is redistribution, even past the point at which there will be no one left to redistribute from. Conservative Members know that jobs, low taxes and low costs improve the quality of life, but the Government are killing those jobs—every month under them, parents are losing their jobs. What do Labour Members think the cost of living is like for those families who have lost their salaries under this Labour Government? There are 170,000 fewer people on the payroll since the election. Young people cannot get a foot on the jobs ladder—because of this Government, the cost of hiring a young person has gone up by £4,000. They say they are raising the minimum wage, but they are crushing businesses’ ability to pay for it. The result is hiring freezes and redundancies, and for all those people just above the minimum wage who are also struggling, there will be no money left for wage progression. The best way to improve living standards is growth, but this was not a Budget for growth; it was a Budget for Labour Back Benchers. That is why it did not contain a single growth measure. Labour’s entire approach to the economy has been to raise the cost of basic goods, to raise taxes, and to crush wages and employment. The Government are expecting a shrinking group of hard-working taxpayers to pay for more redistribution, to cover the costs that they are choosing to impose on the public. In the words of one Labour Cabinet Minister, this Budget has been a “disaster”. Those are not my words—according to a No. 10 source, they think they are the words of the Secretary of State. Labour will not be known as the party helping people with the cost of living; it will be known as the party that has broken its promises to working people, broken its promises on tax and on bills, and broken the social contract that sees work pay more than welfare.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Let us talk about that £150. If someone has a gas boiler, the figure is £130. I remind the Secretary of State that that is almost everybody in the country. Oh yes, and if they pay tax, the amount has not come off—it has just been moved from their energy bill to their tax bill. Most importantly, that amount does not even touch the sides of what this Secretary of State will cost people in the end. Like so much of what Labour says, it is just sleight of hand. The real question is this: since the election, have bills gone up or down? The answer is up. The Secretary of State should be honest that this policy was never part of his plan. It is not part of Great British Energy or clean power 2030—all the things that he promised would lower bills. In fact, it is a tacit admission that he has failed. The centre knows that his plan cannot lower bills. In fact, if the reporting is correct, the Secretary of State fought against the policy, but he has been forced into it, because his promise to cut bills by £300 has become a national embarrassment to them all. It is taxpayers who are bailing him out to the tune of £7 billion.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  We can exchange quotes, but the hon. Gentleman might want to— [ Interruption. ] Let me respond. He can go and check the quotes of the most respected energy economist in the country, Sir Dieter Helm, who says that the Government’s plan is locking people into higher bills for longer. One of the fundamental problems we have in this country is that energy costs are too high, and the Secretary of State is locking people into those higher prices for longer. If the Government truly want to cut bills for everyone, they should use our cheap power plan. Do you know what is extraordinary, Madam Deputy Speaker? The Government have come up with a package that costs the Exchequer more, cuts bills by less and does nothing to cut energy bills for struggling businesses. Food bills are up. Rents are up. The costs of holidays are up. Energy bills are up. That is cost after cost after cost because of the Government’s policies, and they want a round of applause for moving a fraction of those costs off energy bills and straight on to people’s tax bills. Only people with the Labour party’s grasp of numbers could think that that is a good deal. The Secretary of State says that there is an affordability crisis, but he does not explain the cause; the Government are the cause. That is before we even get to tax. Taxes on student loans, taxes on income, taxes on saving, taxes on housing, taxes on driving, taxes on pensions, and even taxes on taxis—if Labour could, it would tax the air that we breathe. Taxes are rising more in this Parliament than in any since the 1970s. The freeze in income tax thresholds means that the average worker on £35,000 a year will lose £1,000 in tax by the end of the decade. That is an extra two weeks they will be working, not to feed their family but to pay for Labour’s benefits bill. Let us be clear. When the Government say that they are asking for a contribution, they are not asking, are they? It is not like anyone can say no. I do not know whether there has ever been a more irritating formulation of words than that phrase, which we have heard so much over this weekend. There will be so many people out there who will look at this Budget and think, “Why do I bother? Why do I get up at 5.30 am? Why do I work overtime? Why do I barely see my family? Why am I going to pay more tax for people on benefits who are not working those hours?”

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  That was a fine performance, but anyone listening to it out there will think that the Secretary of State is in cloud cuckoo land. The Government have taxed working families up the wazoo. They have taxed tens of thousands of people out of their jobs. They are clobbering them left, right and centre with rising bills, and for what? It is not for growth—no, there is none of that coming—but so that they can go on a welfare spending spree. In the election, Labour promised the public that it would not lift the two-child benefit cap, just like it promised that it would not raise taxes on working people. It has broken promise after promise, and it has fudged the reasons why, to say the least. In this debate, the Government want a thank you from the public because they have handed them back a tiny fraction of the money that they took from them. I can tell you that the public are thinking of a phrase that ends in “you”—

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I remind the hon. Gentleman that when I was Energy Secretary, bills came down by £500. Under this Secretary of State, they have gone up by £200. What he needs to explain to his constituents is why signing up to higher prices on inflation-linked contracts for 20 years will fulfil the promise he made to those constituents to cut their bills by £300. I wish he could explain that. It is worth Labour Members listening to this. From the Tony Blair Institute to the most respected energy economist, Sir Dieter Helm, everybody has pointed out this risk to them. It has not come to them without warning, the fact that they are signing up to prices much more expensive than gas for decades. They are on the wrong side of this debate and they are on the wrong side of consumers. Come January, when the results are published, everybody will be able to see that. And they will ask them: were you warned? Did you do your job in Parliament and speak up for me and my bills? Here is the problem. Their whole position is not driven by what is best for consumers; it is driven by ideology. Nowhere is that clearer than in their war on the North sea. When Scottish Renewables says that Labour’s policy on oil and gas is damaging the transition, surely even Labour Members must realise that they are on the wrong path.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend, who is so knowledgeable on matters to do with energy. He is right: the only people who have not got the message are Labour Members, who are on the wrong side of this debate. The Secretary of State promised to cut bills by £300, but bills have gone up by £200 since the general election. I warned Labour Members over and over again that this would happen, but they did not listen. Now, under their plans, energy bills will keep on rising. They might not want to hear that from me, but they should listen to the trade unions, or to energy bosses, who came to Parliament just a few weeks ago and, in a bombshell moment, said that even if gas prices went to zero, bills would still rise because of Labour’s plans. I would hazard a guess that their view is shared by the Prime Minister, given that he tried to sack the Secretary of State at the last reshuffle. What does the Prime Minister know that these guys don’t, I wonder? Our electricity is already some of the cleanest in the world, but it is also the most expensive. If we want people to adopt electric cars or electric home heating, we need to make electricity cheap. If we want artificial intelligence or industry to succeed in this country, we need to make electricity cheap. If we want people to have a better standard of life, so that they can spend more money on their families than on their bills, we need to make electricity cheap. Our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills by 20%, and not just for a favoured few, whereas Labour is pushing up bills for 22 million families to give handouts to 6 million. Our plan would cut bills for everybody—households and businesses. It would mean £165 off the average family’s bill, but even more if they spend more—and we could do it now.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to introduce a plan for cheap power by cutting public expenditure to remove the ‘Carbon Tax’ (UK Emissions Trading Scheme) from electricity generation and end Renewable Obligation subsidies; notes that the UK has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world and the second highest domestic electricity prices; further notes that high power costs are holding back economic growth and making households poorer; believes that cheap energy is essential to enable economic growth, the expansion of the artificial intelligence sector and the electrification of heating and transport; further calls on the Government to stop the Allocation Round 7 auction, which will lock consumers into high energy bills for decades; also notes that three quarters of the UK’s energy needs are met by oil and gas, and recognises the vital contribution of the North Sea industry to the nation’s energy security, to skilled employment, and to the public finances through billions of pounds generated in tax revenue; notes that shutting down domestic oil and gas production would increase reliance on foreign imports with higher carbon emissions; and also calls on the Government to end the ban on new oil and gas licences and to scrap the Energy Profits Levy in order to maximise investment in that sector. Our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills for everyone by 20%, and under it, we take a common-sense approach to British energy security by backing the North sea. The plan recognises that the biggest problem the country faces is the cost of our electricity. It is a problem for living standards, for industry, for artificial intelligence and for electrification. The focus of any Government should be making electricity less expensive, not more expensive, as Labour’s plans will. They should be about making electricity cheap. Under our cheap power plan, we would axe the carbon tax—which has gone up by 70% this year under Labour, pushing up everybody’s energy bills—and scrap the renewable obligation subsidies, which result in some wind farms get three times the market price for electricity. I would like to start by thanking the Liberal Democrats, who came out this morning as backing the second part of our plan. I would also like to thank Reform, which appears to have copy and pasted the plan wholesale, and the Tony Blair Institute, which just two weeks ago said that we need to ditch Labour’s disastrous clean power plan in favour of a cheap power plan that takes off carbon taxes. That sounds familiar.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  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. Instead, it will cut electricity bills by 20% for everyone. Government Members should think about this: at the last energy price cap, the reason bills went up was not gas—Ofgem was very clear about that—but because of the political choices of this Secretary of State. He keeps making them defend the indefensible. Speaking of the Secretary of State, where is he? Thousands of Aberdonians are losing their jobs—where is the Secretary of State? We are being locked into higher bills for two decades—where is the Secretary of State? We are missing out on an AI future—where is the Secretary of State? Since July he has bothered to come to the House to explain himself just once. He is a walking, talking cost of living crisis, and his mistakes will be with us for decades. If I have read the news correctly, he is apparently tucked away somewhere plotting his leadership bid. But let us be honest, the country was asked that question and it was very clear what it thought about the prospect of Prime Minister Miliband. He should stop plotting and start cutting people’s bills. The final question I would ask Labour Members is this: are they not fed up? Are they not fed up of defending these policies that keep turning to dust as soon as they meet reality, of telling their constituents they will cut their bills when instead bills keep rising, and of being political mushrooms left in the dark and fed a pile of manure? We were all mushrooms once, Madam Deputy Speaker. If this is going to be the one and only Parliament the Labour Members have, they should at least use it to do something worthwhile. They must stand up to the Secretary of State and stop him from locking their constituents into higher prices for longer. Put cheap energy first and vote for our motion tonight to back 200,000 jobs in the North sea, get back to growth and cut all our constituents’ electricity bills by 20%.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for his time and willingness in going through the plan. Costs were not always so high; we actually had the lowest gas prices before the crisis, and we had lower electricity prices as well. What has happened is that we have switched a lot of costs into fixed costs, and those costs are increasing. It is something everybody is looking at, from the Tony Blair Institute to the trade unions—people right across the political spectrum. We need to address this issue because there is a huge amount on the line, whether that is growth or living standards. As I have said, AI is here in the near term; we cannot wait until the 2040s, which is the Government’s plan. Even then, it is not clear that their plan would bring down bills at all.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. That is what genuine equality looks like, and that is what the British people believe in.