Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

Debate between John Hayes and Tom Hayes

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see another Hayes serving in the Chair, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this debate. When we talk about the carbon budget delivery plan, we are talking about progress towards a cleaner, fairer and more secure Britain. With COP30 getting under way properly, we know the consequences of breaching the 1.5° limit: there will be more people exposed to extreme heat, higher sea levels, increased food security risks, the extinction of species, a loss of virtually all coral reefs, and the spread of climate-sensitive diseases on a greater scale. We cannot allow that to happen.

Although we are tackling this issue for global reasons, it is clear that there will be benefits at home. Clean energy is the route to faster and more resilient growth. Analysis by Oxford Economics for Energy UK shows that we can add up to £240 billion in value to our economy by 2050 if we increase our ambition. The faster we move now, the more our economy will work for working people and the more good, secure jobs we will create.

I am particularly pleased that the Government are setting up Great British Energy with £8.3 billion of funding going into large-scale solar, offshore wind and grid-scale battery projects. I am also pleased to see today’s announcement by SSE of £33 billion of investment to unlock secure and affordable clean energy, and to support our economic growth. That is proof that when we invest in the green economy, we see investors returning that.

Sprinting to net zero does not just boost growth; it also protects growth. We saw what happened when the last Government failed to plan for resilience. Volatile international fossil fuel markets sent our bills soaring and made our growth sputter. Typical household energy costs nearly doubled in a single year and all our constituents are still living with the cost of that. Millions of people were pushed into fuel poverty and energy bill debt remains at record levels. Indeed, when the last Government finally acted, they did so at huge cost, spending £94 billion of taxpayers’ money. That crisis could have been prevented with sustained investment in energy independence and efficiency.

We should be going as fast as we can on net zero because another such crisis could be prevented with clean home-grown energy. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that a fossil fuel price shock could cost us between 2% and 3% of GDP in the 2030s. We cannot afford such a shock to be inflicted on our constituents all over again.

The delivery plan faces several other challenges. We know that there are opponents who have chosen an anti-jobs, anti-science path that would spell disaster for our economy, our security and our planet. Too often, net zero has been treated as a political football. Deadlines have been delayed, targets have been softened and certain voices have claimed that our targets are “impossible” to meet. Indeed, there have even been threats to rip up green contracts, undermining investor confidence when our constituencies need investment in jobs in the green economy so that we can lead from the front. To all those who resist home-grown renewables or reject British-built nuclear, let me be clear: they are undermining our security, driving up our bills and holding back growth. That is bad for Britain and bad for our planet.

Our national security is our energy security, so I do have to speculate about some of the opposition to net zero. When I see that 92% of Reform UK’s post-2019 funding is linked to or comes directly from donors tied to fossil fuel interests, polluting industries or climate science denial groups, it makes me wonder. Similarly, we know that the leadership of Reform UK’s pick for First Minister of Wales was a paid Putin propagandist. Why is Reform UK so keen for Britain to be addicted to Russian-dominated fossil fuel markets? Our energy security comes in many forms.

We also know that despite all the political noise, the markets and the public remain firmly committed to clean energy. Among Fortune Global 500 companies, net zero commitments have risen from 8% in 2020 to 45% last year. Some 70% of the UK public support the net zero target, compared with just 18% who do not, and 65% of the UK public want more renewable generation, while only 7% disagree with increasing renewables. Polling by the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association found that 68% of people are uncomfortable with their pensions or savings being invested in companies that harm the environment.

Let me be clear: the Conservatives and Reform UK will lock Britain out of the race for green economic leadership. People up and down our country will lose out. However, Britain can no longer be held back, because the race for the jobs and industries of the future is speeding up, so we must go all-in on clean energy.

This is a critical moment. Global insecurity is driving insecurity at home, and many people feel ignored and left behind. While the world moves at speed, our politics remains stuck. People are hungry for change, but if this Government do not deliver it, others will—and that worries me.

Our task as a country is to lead in this era. It is not to defend the broken ways of doing things, but to create new methods to give people the stability and pride that they crave, and a country that is on the up once again as it leads the global race for green investment. We cannot afford to leave our country to those who will cosy up to Putin by indulging the fossil fuel markets and volatile prices that come with them. That means taking on vested interests, and restoring control of our energy and our economy. The dividing line in politics must be between the disruptors and those who defend a status quo that is working in nobody’s interest.

We know that net zero is the economic opportunity of a generation. Our net zero economy grew 10.1% in 2024. Net zero foreign direct investment was up 46% last year, reaching £20 billion, and 95% of major financial firms—representing over £1 trillion in turnover and £200 billion in green investments—say that they would increase UK investment with greater policy certainty, unlocking up to £100 billion. Is there policy certainty in scrapping the Climate Change Act or threatening to rip up the green contracts that the Government are delivering?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. Can you bring your remarks to a close, otherwise no one else will be able to get in?

[Tom Hayes]

I apologise.

The capital is waiting, public support is strong and technology is ready. What is needed is yet more policy certainty, clarity and courage. We have seen so much already, but there is more to do. Net zero should not be a political football. It is a strategic national mission, the UK’s growth story and a foundation for jobs, competitiveness and resilience.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call Susan Murray—you have a couple of minutes.

UK-EU Summit

Debate between John Hayes and Tom Hayes

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak, and I commend the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on staying on his feet for nearly half an hour—quite an impressive feat. It is an honour to follow him; he was elected 33 years ago, when I was nine. I imagine that he has seen a lot of history over the past 33 years, and over the past nearly 10 years since the referendum.

If we think about the main features of that history, it is indisputable that we live in a new world. We have the illegal invasion of Ukraine; Taiwan is acting as a test point; NATO and the UN are at risk; and there is rising authoritarian populism, which risks democratic backsliding, be that through the undermining of institutions, power being concentrated in the Executive, the dismissal of checks and balances, growing electoral interference, or big tech captains involving themselves in democratic politics like never before. We see economic inequality on an unprecedented scale. That creates a risk of democratic instability, here and around the world. There is also the risk of wealth concentration, unaddressed tax haven networks, rising social inequality, and people feeling left out. Issues of development, aid and debt relief are gone from our political discussions.

The rise of technology risks creating democratic threats. Artificial intelligence and social media create the potential for deepfakes, automated disinformation, cyber-attacks and the development of lethal systems with no human oversight. There are health challenges, such as the global pandemic that we have been through. Climate change continues unabated and remains unaddressed at the scale needed, creating the possibility of resource conflicts, climate refugee flows and stresses on nature and wildlife. If that has not convinced the House that I am a fun time down the pub, I do not know what will.

I say all that because those are the major threats that have emerged in the past 10 years—and that is not an exhaustive list. If I carried on, Members would want me to sit down faster. We have to face reality. All of us in this place were elected to behave like grown-ups—to face the facts, debate on the basis of reality, and come up with common-sense solutions. Given that we face those threats—I have not even mentioned the lion’s share of threats in the UK, which I would say we inherited from the previous Government—it is no wonder that people outside the walls of Westminster feel that we go too slow and do not focus on the things that they care about. It is no wonder that people are succumbing to hopelessness, and feel that politics is not meeting their needs.

A question was asked earlier about what was on the ballot paper. I accept that the European Union was not on the ballot paper as an existential question. However, what was on the ballot paper was quality of life in our country, the state of our economy, and the possibility that generations will be locked out of the democratic agreement and social contract on a fair chance at life. We Labour Members are saying that trade is a solution to some of those challenges.

As I was saying, people outside the walls of this Palace feel frustrated by the slowness of our debates.

[Sir John Hayes]

rose—

[Tom Hayes]

I will come to you shortly.

We must recognise the importance of urgency. That is why I am genuinely extremely pleased that we have a Government who have moved forward in recent days and weeks with two significant trade deals. The first, with India, was achieved in 10 months, after the Conservatives had spent eight years saying that they would get a deal. We rolled up our sleeves and got a deal that will put more money into people’s pockets, create jobs here, and benefit our economy. The trade deal with the United States is not what we would have got had Kamala Harris been elected President; it is the deal we could get with Donald Trump as President, and I think that it shows realistic, common-sense negotiation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I am extremely grateful to my namesake for giving way. He is making an interesting speech. He is right that global power and its growth is making people feel that they cannot affect decision making; that is a profound point, but we need to root power closer to people, not detach it from them, as happens when power is given over to foreign potentates, whether in the EU or any other part of the world.

[Tom Hayes]

I agree with the right hon. Member. With the UK a sovereign, independent trading nation, we in this place are able to shape the debate and conditions of trade. We have the prospect of an EU trade deal before us, and we must grasp it. If we do not, we will see our country fall further behind. There are areas of possibility for that trade deal. For example, there is a need for the transfer and exchange of clean energy between the UK and France and the European Union on a larger scale. I had the privilege of visiting Gosport recently to see IFA2—Interconnexion France-Angleterre 2—where the subsea interconnector is exchanging clean energy between the UK and France, ensuring that we can keep the lights on not only here but in France and across the European Union. Surely energy security is an important feature of our democracy, in an age where we are threatened by Putin and other dictators.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Tom Hayes

Report stage
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

The key thing about tobacco—as the hon. Member for Worthing West, the expert on public health who is sitting next to the hon. Gentleman, will no doubt confirm—is that people tend to acquire the habit early and, as the hon. Lady said, cannot break it. Not many people are non-smokers at 30 and become smokers at 40. The vast majority of smokers acquire the habit early in their lives. My father probably started smoking at 13. He gave up overnight when he was 75, because the price of Golden Virginia went up. I said to him, “Do you feel any better,” and he replied, “I didn’t feel ill when I smoked and I don’t feel ill now”—but that is another matter.

This issue really relates to young people and children in particular, and that brings me to vapes. I support much of what is in the Bill about them. Schools have an immense problem with vaping. Headteachers and teachers tell me that it is something that they have to be religious in scrutinising, because these things can find their way into schools so easily—in someone’s bag, for instance. Rather as with mobile phones, we must enforce a ban on vapes in schools with rigour. I think that the measures being introduced in the Bill will reinforce that, so I share the Government’s ambition in that respect.

On new clause 12, which stands in my name, I again find it hard to believe that the Government will not accept it willingly, because it simply says that we should review how effective the legislation is. It is probably true that every Bill we debate ought to have something like this attached to it, because it is a good idea—once a Bill has been published, debated, considered and passed into law—that it should be regularly reviewed in such a way.

I understand that the movers of this Bill, its advocates and its enthusiasts believe that they are doing the right thing, and I am not unsympathetic to some of their ambitions. I do sometimes—often indeed—wish that this House was coloured by common sense as liberally as it is peppered with piety. None the less, let me be generous and say that I know that the Minister and others feel that they are doing something noble. However, it is absolutely right, when we legislate in this House, that we do so with the greatest care, with clear and desirable purposes of the kind I mentioned a moment or two ago, appropriate means and measurable effects.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I am moving to my thrilling peroration, but I will hesitate for a moment or two.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way, and I cannot express just how pleased I am that he has. Children make up one in five of our population, but routinely get ignored, so it is no wonder that playground after playground gets closed. If a child is able to make their way into a playground, they are now subject to second-hand smoke, because to date there is no law to stop that. Does he agree with me that one of the great things about this Bill is that we are going to protect children against second-hand smoke and make sure that their health is better as a result?

[Sir John Hayes]

I agree that it would be better if children were able to avoid either first-hand or second-hand smoke. We have to stop young people themselves smoking. Sadly, too many people do smoke too young. Rightly, as the hon. Gentleman says, we need to prevent their being affected by the smoking of others, so what he said is of course perfectly reasonable.

I will repeat my pre-peroration briefly. I have said that the legislation we pass should have a clear and desirable purpose, appropriate means and a measurable effect. In other words, we need to do the right things by the right means for the right reason. Laws that are unenforceable are not only undesirable; they do us as legislators no favours, for they undermine popular faith in what we do and in who we are. Much of this law is unenforceable for the reasons I have given. Parliament’s history is littered with unforeseen consequences. I foresee, and I hope others might too, that with the improvements the amendments would bring to this Bill, we can avoid some of the worst of those unforeseen consequences.