That is frankly another patronising non-answer from the Secretary of State. I am not sure whether he got the memo, but his party is fed up with the sexist boys club. What is crucial is that the public have lost faith in the Labour party. This is a serious moment. Does he accept that when he stands at the Dispatch Box and tells the public that by his calculation their bills are falling, not rising, they simply do not believe him? Does he also accept that when he does not set out what any of his plans—such as doubling the carbon tax or clean power 2030—will do to bills, he makes a mockery of his party's pretence that it cares about the cost of living? Does he not reflect on all this—the £300 nonsense pledge, the Great British Energy fig leaf—and realise that when it comes to loss of trust, he is not their salvation but their problem?

Last week, the Labour party voted to increase the carbon tax, which has already doubled due to its policies. It now accounts for over 10% of household electricity bills and represents a £5 billion annual tax burden. Can the Minister explain why Labour wants to impose higher costs on industry and households?

Last year, the Secretary of State signed a secret energy deal with China, which he has refused to publish. This is simply unheard of. We have heard repeatedly from intelligence services that China might seek to disrupt our energy system, so it is crucial that the public get to see what he has signed us up to. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing the full text of his secret energy deal with China, and if not, will he tell the House what it is that he is trying to hide?

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. We know where sectarian politics leads—conflict and strife. Even one of Labour’s candidates at the last election was threatened with beheading. Will the Secretary of State call out this problem?

Nurses up and down the country, including Darlington nurses and Jennifer Melle, are being hounded and harassed by the NHS simply for recognising that biological sex is real. I am grateful that the Minister has previously agreed to meet Jennifer. Will she hold accountable those in the NHS, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and unions who have harassed and victimised these nurses?

Jennifer Melle, a black nurse with a faultless record, was racially abused by a convicted paedophile for correctly referring to his biological sex in a medical context. She was called the N-word multiple times in her workplace, yet she was the one who was punished by her NHS trust and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. She is still suspended from the job she loves, 18 months later. Does the Secretary of State agree that the dedicated nurses who are being punished for asserting that biological sex is real are facing a gross injustice, and will she meet Jennifer to hear her story?

At this COP, acres of the Amazon were chopped down so that the Secretary of State can lecture us about saving the planet. Can the Minister justify why his Government did not even put a single penny into the forest fund, which could have at least repaired some of the damage?

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”. Public servants did not speak up because they were scared of being called racist. The Government are now bringing in a new definition but refuse to publish it before adoption. Will the Minister commit to publishing the draft definition for full public scrutiny?

In January, the Supreme Court ruled that sex means biological sex—a victory for women’s rights. However, there is concern over delays in releasing Equality and Human Rights Commission's (EHRC) guidance despite no legal changes being necessary. Will the Minister release this guidance to ensure 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 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?

Why will the Government not support sensible legislation to ban this practice?

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?

Given the Secretary of State's support for a high carbon tax that could devastate British industry, how many jobs would be lost due to this policy?

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?

At the end of this month, For Women Scotland v. Scottish Ministers will be heard in the UK Supreme Court. Can the Government assure the House that they are now clear that the definition in 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex?

Does the Secretary of State agree that equality is not about group identities or placing one section of society on a platform above another, but about individual freedom and responsibility?

This is the ministerial team who told the electorate they were going to cut their bills by £300, without doing any homework to find out how those plans would work. They voted against our amendment to hold them to account on their own pledge just two weeks ago, and now they are trying to claim that the NESO report shows that their approach will lower bills when in fact it shows in black and white that the system will be much more expensive. Does the Minister not see that if they follow this plan, we will be a warning, not an example, to the rest of the world and that the British people will be colder and poorer as a result?

Last week, the National Energy System Operator published a full systems cost analysis of the Secretary of State's flagship project to carbonise the grid by 2030. This morning, the Secretary of State said on several media outlets that the report shows that his plans will lower bills. I remind the House that the report assumes that gas prices are 40% higher than the Department's own estimates, that the price of carbon is at least double what it is now, and that they can build the grid at a pace we have never seen before in this country, without any delays. Even if all that is achieved, page 78 of the report shows that the cost of the system will be higher. For clarity, would the Minister like to repeat at the Dispatch Box the Secretary of State's claim that the NESO report shows that Labour's system will lead to a lower cost of electricity?

Given the Prime Minister's announcement of higher carbon emission targets despite contributing only 1% of global emissions, and with leaders of major emitters absent; does the Minister agree that this approach could lead to more sacrifice for British people without significant benefits?

What is my right hon. Friend's strategy to tackle grid capacity issues, and will he meet me and local businesses to discuss this?

Will the Secretary of State do the decent thing and set out the full systems cost of his approach so that the public can see what he will do to their bills?