Critical Minerals Strategy

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. There is an intrinsic link between the availability of critical minerals and the surety of defence, which is why so many countries are concerned about this. It is also why I am determined to ensure that British businesses are invested in and grow in the UK so that we have the supply of critical minerals that we need.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I welcome the strategy for all that it will do to tackle China’s stranglehold on critical minerals. It will sit alongside the Government’s efforts to build home-grown clean energy to get off the Russia-dominated fossil fuel market, and our work to ramp up the domestic production of defence capabilities to keep the Russian menace at bay. That stands in stark contrast to Reform, whose leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, has just been jailed for 10 years for betraying our country and accepting bribes for pushing out pro-Putin propaganda. Does the Minister agree that we can all feel safer when our essentials are made in Britain?

[Chris McDonald]

I agree that the security of the nation is very much dependent on the availability of these critical minerals. I hope that when people go to the ballot box, they think about the security of this nation and whether parties such as Reform can be trusted when they have senior people taking bribes from overseas Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

Yes. The hon. Lady touches on a number of points. The transition means building on the industrial strategy that we outlined as a Government, because are not agnostic about industrial policy—we care that things are built in this country again. That is why there is a £1 billion supply chain fund to ensure that we get the economic advantage of the clean power transition, as well as energy security. There is a broader question around building up the skills to ensure that there is a future workforce that can take advantage of that. She and I both know that that sits with the Scottish Government, who are woefully underfunding further education—a route that so many young Scots might take to create the opportunity to embark on a career in the energy sector—so I hope there will be a change of Government in Scotland soon.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I am thrilled that University Hospitals Dorset NHS foundation trust, one of the region’s biggest emitters, has secured two grants totalling £3 million from Great British Energy for solar investment, but its ambition goes further. The trust wants to develop a geothermal solution that pulls energy from the geology under the Royal Bournemouth hospital. Will the Minister meet me and representatives from the trust so that we can explore this potential decarbonisation project together?

[Michael Shanks]

It sounds like a great idea. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and representatives from the trust to discuss that.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

That is a hugely important question. This is a significant moment for British innovation, because we are now moving forward quickly to ensure that we are at the forefront of this innovation, so that other countries that are already looking to the Rolls-Royce designs can benefit from them as well, but made in Britain. The aim of SMRs that is different from gigascale nuclear is to get to a point where their replicability means that we can produce the SMR technology for export market as well as for ourselves. That is important for our allies across the world who want nuclear to be part of their energy mix, and it is a hugely important economic opportunity for this country as well.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

In the first nine years of the 14 years of Conservative Government, David Cameron sent Wylfa to the wall, George Osborne begged the Chinese to invest—we are still unpicking that mistake—and Theresa May nearly killed off Hinkley Point C, and with it Sizewell C, and after that things actually got worse. Under Labour, plants are getting off the ground to end our reliance on dictators like Putin, which is to be commended. Will the Minister set out how we will build our nuclear future in all parts of the UK? May I make a particular recommendation for Dorset, because we have Winfrith, which could be a really big part of our nuclear future?

[Michael Shanks]

I was expecting every question today to be, “Could an SMR be built in my constituency?” but my hon. Friend is the first to ask, so he wins the prize for that. I will not labour the point, but as he says, we had a lot of promises and a lot of big talk from the Conservative Government on nuclear, but very little actually delivered. The truth is that no money was put forward for any of those things. It is easy to sign and say, “We want to deliver something,” but without putting any money forward, nothing will happen. We have committed almost £20 billion in funding to make Britain’s new golden age of nuclear a reality, which will deliver jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. We are ambitious about the future of SMRs. They can be sited in a great many more places than traditional nuclear facilities. We have asked Great British Energy Nuclear to look at the range of sites across the United Kingdom that are possible, not just the sites that were traditionally designated for nuclear projects. That opens up huge opportunity for the energy mix of the future, and for jobs, investment and training throughout supply chains as well.

Rogue Builders

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman has probably read my speech, as that is the core of it. The legal problem is bigger than just failing to support victims through the court system. Rogue builders know the legal system works in their favour. There are builders who create fictitious bills or charge fictitious costs for work not carried out—I have seen that as a victim myself. I contracted a builder to renovate a much-loved family home, and they failed to do the work in time, which was a breach of contract. They rattled on for far too long, they did not do the whole work and, at the end, they put in a massive, fictitious bill. Our quantity surveyor reckoned there was an outstanding balance to pay of perhaps £6,000, but they put in a bill for £100,000.

In the end, everybody said, “You have to negotiate.” We negotiated a final settlement, which was multiple times in excess. This is a fundamental problem. We do not get redress, and we have to negotiate even if we know the negotiation is bogus.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. There are lots of excellent and reliable builders in Bournemouth East, but I am thinking of my constituents Andrew and Heather, who have really suffered at the hands of a rogue builder whose contact details they were unable to access. They got in touch with me because of their concern about their circumstances. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me, and with them, that the domestic building industry needs strong licensing and regulation? Without that, we will not stop cowboy builders exploiting my constituents.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman makes exactly the right point. We need a balance of risk, and I will come to that point later.

Consumers of repair, maintenance and improvement building services have no protection whatsoever. There is no practical protection for consumers to avoid the highly risky, unbelievably expensive and emotionally draining prospect of prosecuting contract law. Indeed, subcontractors working on my home were also victims of the rogue builder because they were not paid, either. It is extraordinary that consumers are unprotected. When we think about the whole process of refurbishing a home or building an extension, it looks even more astonishing.

The proud homeowner seeking to improve their home will go to an architect regulated by the Architects Registration Board. They might contract a quantity surveyor regulated by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. They will probably need to borrow money, so they might approach a mortgage broker regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. They will get help with a mortgage provided by a lender—again, regulated by the FCA, and possibly the Prudential Regulation Authority—with advice from a solicitor regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The money will then be deposited in a bank, again regulated by the FCA and the PRA.

The whole process is laden with consumer protection right up to the point where the money is handed over to someone with absolutely no regulation, possibly no qualifications, and no protection mechanism for consumers. As I said before, the problem gets worse, but it is worth repeating. The victim may well prosecute the case in court and win both damages and costs. But at that point the rogue builder goes bust with no assets, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), and starts a new business the following day to continue the process of ripping off consumers. Meanwhile, the victim’s costs are unpaid and run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. The consumer ends up winning the moral victory but losing an enormous amount of money, while the rogue builder goes on to do the same again without any consequence.

Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

Tom Hayes Excerpts

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 Modern Industrial Strategy

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

My bronchitis is starting to get to me a little, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The CBI says that our net zero economy grew by 9% in 2023, and that it was 40% more productive and wages in the sector were 15% higher than the UK average, so I am pleased to say that this industrial strategy is betting on a winner with clean energy. I am also pleased to hear the announcement that the Government will be slashing the cost of energy for industry, but will the Secretary of State tell me, my constituents in Bournemouth and people across the south-west what the industrial strategy will do for the south-west?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am more than happy to tell my hon. Friend. We have breakdowns for every region going to every colleague; there is so much for each part of the UK that I could not possibly do it justice from the Dispatch Box. On his point about clean energy, there is so much money coming into the UK—and more in future—that it would be crazy to turn our backs on that. This is a major economic opportunity, as well as being about a safe, reliable, clean supply of energy for the UK, which is the basis of all economic activity. We can provide that while reducing energy bills for industry, so that is exactly the kind of consistent approach that this country has needed for some time.

Employment Rights Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

I particularly welcome the Government’s new schedule 2, which will update frameworks for trade unions, reflect modern work practices and rebalance industrial relations. It will ensure that the size of a workplace bargaining unit will be frozen and cannot be increased during the recognition process. A recent example of where this new schedule would have supported workers occurred at Amazon. When my union, the GMB, first applied for statutory recognition there, Amazon reported that it had 1,400 employees working at the site and refused to have any discussion on trade union recognition. Amazon workers faced a David versus Goliath fight in having to prove that they had at least 40% support in the workplace for union recognition. As amended, the Bill will vastly simplify that process, with the new schedule freezing the bargaining unit at the point of application. We want to be able to bring good practice and good employers to our constituencies.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

In 2023, BH Live, a company based in my constituency, was named as not paying 130 workers—130 of the lowest-paid workers in my constituency—the national minimum wage. Ultimately, BH Live did make payments, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for anybody to be paid less than the national minimum wage, and that through the introduction of the new Fair Work Agency we are going to be able to right wrongs like that?

[Steve Yemm]

I absolutely agree; my hon. Friend has spelled out why enforcement is so important.

I would happily speak further in support of so many of the amendments that have been tabled, but I am acutely aware that we are at the end of the debate.

“Chapter 4A

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Griffiths]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. Anyone who has ever looked for a job—Members in the Chamber will probably count themselves as being among the better qualified of the population looking for work—will know that most employers, of any kind, do not want to take a risk. If we make it even harder for them to employ people who are a risk at base point, it will not serve their purposes.

The Government’s own impact assessments suggest that the direct effects of the Bill will cost UK businesses an additional £5 billion annually. That estimate most likely understates the true cost, as it accounts only for administrative burdens while ignoring the broader impact on hiring, business costs and strike action. Key factors such as reduced hiring due to zero-hours contract limits, increased strike activity, and greater liability from employment tribunal claims, as outlined in the Bill, are dismissed as “too hard to calculate”, making those assessments highly questionable.

That is why I support new clause 86, which would require an impact assessment to be carried out for the measures in clause 21. We tabled new clause 83 and amendment 283 to ensure that the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours workers would not come into force until a comprehensive review of the Bill’s impact on employment tribunals had been assessed and approved by Parliament. Clause 18 places a new duty on employers to prevent third-party harassment. Protecting employees is unquestionably important, and no one should doubt the sincerity of Conservative Members about that.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree, as I do, that it is right that 1.3 million low earners who find themselves ill should receive statutory sick pay for the first time? Like her, I represent a coastal seat with a tourist sector, and as a consequence my constituency has a significant number of low earners. Does she agree that we need to be backing them?

[Alison Griffiths]

I refer the hon. Member first to my earlier comments about ensuring that we do not disincentivise employers, and secondly to the flexibility that is needed for both employers and employees.

Amendment 288 seeks to exclude hospitality providers and sports venues from those provisions, recognising the impracticality of holding employers accountable for every interaction in those environments. It is simply not practical to think that every publican, landlord and bar owner—small business owners—would be liable for any harassment that happens towards their employees in a pub, bar, nightclub or festival. Amendment 285 would require an impact assessment to be carried out on clause 18. Of course businesses and business owners should embed good working practices and guidelines to combat this abhorrent behaviour, but it is impractical and undesirable for the Government to legislate nationally for every sector and business.

High Street Retailers

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Campbell]

I do not know those organisations, but I presume, on the basis of the hon. Lady’s endorsement, that they are very worth while and worth defending.

This week—this is a very topical issue—the Government in the Irish Republic have indicated that they will look at VAT terms. Of course, Northern Ireland is in very close proximity to the Republic. Here in the UK, VAT is charged at 20%, and in the Irish Republic it is 13%. That puts our high street retailers, particularly those in the hospitality sector, at a bit of a disadvantage. The Government in the Republic have indicated that they will reduce their rate yet again from 13% down to 9%, which means that the disadvantage gap for Northern Ireland retailers and consumers will widen considerably.

The Minister will obviously not be able to respond immediately. If he does, I would be very surprised. I would welcome his response if he were able to say, “I’m going to go to the Treasury and get special dispensation for Northern Ireland hospitality on the high street, with a 5% introductory rate for the next four years of this Parliament”—I think that would be an excellent idea that would get support across the divide in Northern Ireland. But I hope he will have some discussion with his colleagues to see what can be done. We are at an acute disadvantage, and it is most heavily felt. In the past couple of days, hotel managers and hospitality retailers have been on local radio saying, “Our opportunity for business is diminishing even more as a result of this decision to reduce VAT in the adjoining businesses, just a few miles across the border, down from 13% to 9%. We are struggling with charging a 20% rate.” So a 5% rate would be very welcome.

In conclusion—

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is funny how saying “In conclusion” gets our attention. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he wants independent stores, fantastic cafés or great restaurants, I can heartily recommend the high streets in Boscombe, Pokesdown, Southport and Tuckton. I could go on, but I will not. I particularly recommend the fantastic vintage store In Off the Far Post in Boscombe. Would the hon. Member agree that we need the Government to support our high streets so that we have more independent shops and fewer candy shops and vape shops, which are often so brightly lit that we can almost see them from space?

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

I agree with what the hon. Member said in his brief tour of his constituency, which I am sure is very enticing to those who have not been. We need support, but we need more than just more of the same. We need to have a structured look at what the high street will look like.

Royal Mail Takeover

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend father does, and to his work as an official of the Communication Workers Union. What the union has said about the reset in industrial relations is really important to improving standards; of course, the other part of the agreement—on investment in the company—is much needed. When everyone works together, everyone shares the common goal of the business expanding and improving its performance. I think we have got everyone aligned on that at last, and I hope that we will all see improvements off the back of that.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Our posties are friendly, familiar faces who go above and beyond all year round, but never more so than at Christmas. It was a pleasure to visit Bournemouth Royal Mail depot recently, on a tour with Martin and Sonia. Will the Minister outline how the Government will prevent any future owner of Royal Mail from driving the company into the ground? What assurances can he give the people of Bournemouth that Royal Mail will finally deliver?

[Justin Madders]

There are a number of safeguards in the deed of understanding that relate to value extraction, so the EP Group will not be able to take profits out of the company unless there is an improvement in performance; there are also safeguards in respect of debt leverage. I hope that gives my hon. Friend the assurances he is looking for.