MP accused of ‘hiding' for Commons statement says she was looking after her baby
Shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho said Mr Miliband should reconsider his remarks, claiming it is an attitude faced by many new mothers when they return to work.
Mr Miliband had pointed out the Conservative shadow minister's absence on Monday as he gave a statement to the Commons on climate and nature.
He said: 'The trouble is we're in a situation now where the shadow secretary of state goes into hiding when there's a statement about the climate crisis, because it's just too embarrassing to try and articulate the opposition's position.'
This was followed by energy minister Kerry McCarthy, who also remarked on her prior absence during energy questions on Tuesday.
Ms Coutinho had asked her why the Government is 'offshoring' British industries, and replacing them with dirtier imports with higher emissions.
Ms McCarthy replied: 'Perhaps if (she) had been here yesterday, she'd have been able to engage with the Secretary of State about that then.'
Ms Coutinho later told MPs she had been missing from the Commons as she was looking after her son Rafael.
The MP for East Surrey has recently returned to the Commons from maternity leave.
Maternity leave for ministers and paid opposition figures, normally shadow secretaries of state, was introduced by the Conservative government in 2021. It entitles them to six months of maternity leave.
She upbraided Mr Miliband as she began her questions to him. She said: 'I will just briefly say that yesterday the Secretary of State said I was hiding, when I was in fact with my six-month old baby who I know he's aware of.
'So, on behalf of all young mums who face these kinds of comments from their first few weeks back to work, can I gently suggest that he reflects on his remarks?'
Mr Miliband apologised, telling her: 'I completely respect her decision to be with her young baby, and there was no offence intended. I think it's very, very important that we understand the needs of new parents and indeed parents across the country.'
Ms Coutinho went on to ask the Government why it is now paying £82 per megawatt hour for offshore wind, up from £72 last year.
'That's the price he's paid for offshore wind, and he's set to do the same this year. And that's before the extra cost for grid for wasted wind and backup which are going through the roof thanks to his policies,' she said.
'Yesterday he admitted to radical honesty, will he either admit that he can't add up or that his policies can't bring down bills?'
Mr Miliband said: 'She is gambling on fossil fuels, the same thing she did which led us to the worst cost-of-living crisis in our country's history.
' Family finances wrecked, business finances wrecked and public finances wrecked. The only way to bring down bills for good is cheap, home-grown power that we can control. We have an energy security plan, they have an energy surrender plan.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Swinney calls for legal referendum if SNP secures majority at Holyrood election
First Minister John Swinney has called for a 'legal referendum recognised by all' on Scottish independence if the SNP secures a majority at the Holyrood elections. Writing in a column in the Daily Record, Mr Swinney said that in the 17 years since the 2008 financial crash 'people feel like they are working harder than ever, but not seeing any improvement in their living standards'. He said the UK economy is 'fundamentally failing to deliver for ordinary people' as well as generating insufficient funding for public services. The SNP leader called for the May 2026 Holyrood elections to be 'a springboard for Scotland taking charge of our own destiny'. He said the situation had got worse since the 2014 referendum, and wrote: 'Think what could have been achieved had we not been forced to spend so much time and money trying to mitigate the ongoing damage of Brexit. 'Or the carnage unleashed by Liz Truss's mini-budget. Or the years of austerity, or Westminster cuts like the Winter Fuel Payment. 'We were told we didn't need independence and we just needed a Labour government – but look how that has turned out.' He wrote that 'independence is the catalyst that will deliver a better future for us all' and that 'with Scotland's energy resources in Scotland's hands, we can reduce bills for consumers and cut costs for businesses'. Mr Swinney revealed he hoped to deliver an SNP majority similar to 2011 in a bid to 'secure a legal referendum recognised by all' and had submitted a motion to the SNP conference proposing that 'we work to deliver a majority of SNP MSPs in the Scottish Parliament to secure that referendum'. He pledged to unveil 'radical policies that we know will transform Scotland' in the coming months, and to 'break the logjam and end this frustration that we all feel'. Mr Swinney added: 'We must be ready to follow the path which we know can lead us to an independent state.' Scottish Conservative deputy leader Rachael Hamilton said: 'John Swinney is like a broken record. In a bid to silence internal critics of his weak leadership, he has thrown diehard nationalists some more red meat on the one issue they all agree on: independence. 'Ordinary Scots are sick and tired of the SNP's obsession with breaking up the UK. 'The public want John Swinney to focus on fixing the damage his government has done in decimating essential services such as schools and the NHS at the same time as making Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK.'
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Algerian criminal can stay in UK because he would be ‘mocked for being trans'
An Algerian criminal has won the right to stay in Britain after claiming he would face ridicule and abuse in his home country for being transgender. The 27-year-old has been jailed for robbery and committed multiple offences including burglary, theft and battery since being granted refugee status in the UK in 2013. In arguing against his deportation, the repeat offender – identified only as MS – claimed he would be targeted in Algeria because of his sexuality, described to a court as 'gay, transvestite and/or transgender'. An asylum judge agreed, upholding his appeal against the Home Office's revocation of his refugee status. Convict's father threatens to kill him Upper tribunal Judge Christopher Hanson said: 'Were MS to return to Algeria and be open about his sexuality, he would be at risk of mockery, harassment, discrimination and potential harm from non-state actors. 'Were he to wear women's clothes and makeup, he would certainly draw negative attention to himself, and would likely be subjected to ridicule, hostility and possible harm. 'While there are some transvestites and transgender individuals in Algeria... they have suffered abuse and harm. 'Algerian society would not generally accept men dressing as women or asserting that they are transgender. Indeed, [his]'s account... of being ridiculed for wearing women's clothes and make up in public areas is entirely plausible, as are his father's threats to kill him on account of his behaviour. 'A family would deem such actions as deeply shameful and humiliating, and would do their utmost to prevent their son from bringing embarrassment and shame in this way. If MS chooses to dress in women's clothing or make up, this would heighten the threat of abuse.' The case is the latest to be revealed by The Telegraph from immigration court documents. It comes as Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, is drawing up new laws to restrict the rights of foreign criminals and illegal migrants to use human rights laws to avoid deportation. She is also tightening the rules to allow the Government to reject asylum applications of sex offenders and give ministers more discretion to block the claims of other offenders. The Upper Tier Tribunal (UTT) of the Asylum and Immigration Chamber was told that the MS is a gay man who had been recognised as a refugee 'who was and is a transvestite and/or is transgender'. Prolific criminality However, since his arrival in Britain 12 years ago, he had been convicted of numerous crimes, including four convictions for offences including burglary and theft; attempted burglary with intent to steal; using threatening, abusive, insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear or provocation of violence; and theft. MS received a warning letter from officials in September 2015, after the decision was taken not to deport them due to Algeria's 'situation'. He received eight further convictions between May 2016 and June 2018 for offences including 'theft; resisting or obstructing a constable; failing to surrender to custody at appointed time and various driving offences'. In August 2018 he was convicted for offences including theft and racially aggravated provocation. In February 2019, he was issued 'administrative removal papers as an overstayer' following the expiry of his refugee limited leave to remain. MS was in and out of prison after this point, and came to the attention of authorities in January of the following year after being convicted for offences including battery. He was sentenced to four years and three months in prison after receiving a conviction for robbery and breaching a criminal behaviour order. 'Grant of international protection' A deportation order was made in August 2022, and he was served with a notice of the decision to revoke his refugee status in the same month. The Home Office asserted in July 2023 that the situation in Algeria had changed and that MS would no longer be an 'individual who would face treatment amounting to persecution' in the country. However, a 'country expert' told the tribunal that while 'homosexuality is not illegal in Algeria engaging in homosexual acts is a punishable offence', and those who do not hide their sexuality are at risk of 'physical violence'. Judge Hanson said: 'I find a holistic assessment of the evidence shows there is sufficient to justify the maintaining of the grant of international protection.' The judge found the lower court had made a legal error because it did not consider the 'protected characteristics' for which the asylum seeker has been 'recognised as a refugee'.
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Laurence Fox arrives at court with his new wife to challenge £180k ruling after losing libel battle against two men he branded paedophiles
Laurence Fox has arrived at court with his wife to challenge a £180,000 High Court ruling after losing a libel battle against two men he branded 'paedophiles' online. The actor-turned-politician was successfully sued last year by former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal over a row on X, formerly Twitter. Fox, 47, called Mr Blake and the former RuPaul 's Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, 'paedophiles' in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month in October 2020. A High Court judge said Fox should pay both men £90,000 each in damages and slammed the Reclaim Party founder for trying to 'attach blame and discredit' the pair during litigation. Shortly after the verdict was announced in April 2024, Fox called the result 'so surreal it's almost funny' in a bizarre social media post in which he also claimed: 'Lady justice ain't blind. She's got both eyes wide open.' He wrote: 'None of the claimants could provide a single witness in court to support the claim that they had suffered any harm. You get the same wonga if you lose a leg at work. 'So surreal it's almost funny. Lady justice ain't blind. She's got both eyes wide open. Will be appealing.' Fox and his wife Elizabeth arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice in London this morning as the right-wing online provocateur sought to make good on his vow to appeal the judgment. Sporting a tattoo of a crucifix on his neck and smoking a cigarette, Fox arrived hand-in-hand with his wife, who he married earlier this year during a private ceremony. The former actor was dressed in a white shirt, jeans and a pair of tan Vivo barefoot hiking boots worth about £296. During the last court battle, Fox had counter-sued Mr Blake and Mr Seymour and broadcaster Nicola Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism. In a previous judgment in January 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, dismissing Mr Fox's counter-claims. During a ruling in April of that year, the judge said Mr Fox should pay Mr Blake and Mr Seymour £90,000 each in damages. She said: 'By calling Mr Blake and Mr Seymour paedophiles, Mr Fox subjected them to a wholly undeserved public ordeal. It was a gross, groundless and indefensible libel, with distressing and harmful real-world consequences for them.' During the previous court case, Lorna Skinner KC, for Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, had said the pair should receive 'at least six-figure sums' from Mr Fox, calling a suggestion the pair should only receive a 'modest' award 'nonsense'. However, Patrick Green KC, for Fox, said the starting point of damages should be between £10,000 and £20,000, with the total being 'substantially lowered' due to an apology from Mr Fox and the absence of malice. Fox previously described the original judgment as a 'bullies charter' and said he disagreed 'profoundly' with the result. He said in a post on X at the time: 'I don't know what the judge will award these people. But the costs of these proceedings are enormous. So a whopper of a cheque is getting written in the next few days.' Fox added: 'We are seeing the courts used maliciously across the west and that is a very concerning trend. So enjoy the victory guys and I hope it is short lived!' Mrs Justice Collins Rice declined to make an order requiring the 47-year-old to publish a summary of the judge's decision on his X account. During a hearing in March 2024, Mr Green had said there was no need for the Lewis actor to publicise the ruling decision on his social media. He said in written submissions: 'This has been the most high-profile libel action of the year and both the trial and the judgment were massively reported in the media.... There can be few, if any, original publishees in the present case who will be unaware of its outcome.' The barrister added: 'The outcome of this long-running case literally could not be better known than it is already. 'For whatever passing doubts or vague suspicions that may have at some time subsisted in the minds of readers, only a modest financial award in compensation should be due.' Mr Green added: 'The remarks were quickly retracted and apologised for, and at the very least it was clear to the public at large at an early stage that the allegation was baseless.'
