Energy

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

More people are now recognising that all is not well with the current approach to energy policy or net zero. That matters because the cost of energy is deeply tied to the cost of living, the cost of doing business, and the security and resilience of our country. It therefore follows that any energy policy which sees us spend £250 million per month to import energy from Europe because our own production cannot meet demand can only be called a failure and a security risk.

The country urgently requires an energy policy that is realistic, reliable and rooted in the pursuit of prosperity, yet what successive Governments have legislated for has been anything but. The net zero agenda is not working and it is time we were honest about that fact. The target may have been well-intentioned, but the current pathway is unaffordable and unworkable.

What many people will be wondering is, how did we get to this point? To address that, we must look back to the Climate Change Act 2008. When the Act was passed, it was the first legislation in the world to set a legally binding national framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it applies only to territorial emissions; that is, emissions that occur within the UK’s borders. This means that while it can be made to look as though we are meeting our climate targets, with a reported 54% reduction in territorial emissions since 1990, we are in fact exporting an increasing share of our emissions elsewhere. This phenomenon, known as carbon leakage, occurs when UK-based industries shut down or relocate overseas to avoid high carbon costs, only for the UK to continue importing the very same goods, often with higher embedded emissions.

Net zero by 2050 may lower UK emissions on paper, but perversely, it is also driving up global emissions in real terms as we become more reliant on imports.

Several forces contribute to this situation. First, UK electricity prices are now among the highest in the developed world, driven in no small part by net zero policies. Secondly, under the UK emissions trading scheme, firms in energy-intensive sectors must buy allowances for every tonne of carbon dioxide they emit—a cost their foreign competitors may not face. Thirdly, the rise of green finance regulations such as mandatory environmental, social and governance disclosure and climate stress testing has constrained domestic investment into high-emissions sectors, even as our competitors around the world forge ahead without similar constraints.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Paul]

I am going to continue, but thanks for the offer.

The economic consequences are now plain to see. Since 2021, the output of UK energy-intensive industries has fallen by around 35%. In sectors such as steel, petrochemicals and fertilisers, this trend is not theoretical, and the damage already done to once-proud industries is plain to see. At Grangemouth in Scotland, INEOS recently announced the closure of its ethanol production facility. Its founder, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, issued a stark warning at the time, saying that Britain is offshoring its emissions and onshoring virtue—we close plants here, import the same products from abroad, and claim we are greener.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the decision to reduce North sea oil and gas output in favour of increased imports. On paper, this slashes the UK’s territorial emissions, but in reality, it leaves us more reliant on volatile overseas markets, increases our net carbon footprint and surrenders billions in domestic tax revenue and thousands of skilled British jobs. We appear to have confused decarbonisation with deindustrialisation.

What do we have to show for years of adherence to the Climate Change Act and everything that came with it? We now have the second highest domestic energy prices and the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, with 12 million families struggling to pay their energy bills. I defy anyone to try to sell that as any kind of success.

The old orthodoxy has been tried and found wanting, and we now need a better way forward. That is what we are offering today with our cheap power plan, which delivers on energy security, supports economic growth and protects the public from unaffordable green extremism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

Yes, I do want to scrap that Act. We will scrap that Act because the cost to the British people is far too high and it is unsustainable. That is why we want to bolster domestic energy security by backing British oil and gas, supporting workers and reducing reliance on imports, which have soared as a direct result of this Government’s policies.

[Tom Hayes]

Will he give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I will not because time is limited, and I want to give the Minister time to respond—oh fine, go on!

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. On that same website, he talks about the deep emissions cuts that result from the Climate Change Act’s emissions targets. Does he agree with the website that were it not for the Climate Change Act, those emission reductions would not have happened?

[Andrew Bowie]

I did not know that my website was such a go-to place for Labour MPs. I recommend they read some of the other things on that website, including the setting out of how our cheap power plan will reduce bills.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Katie White]

It is slightly above my pay grade to determine the Prime Minister’s diary, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we will proudly launch the carbon budget growth and delivery plan later this month.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to increase co-operation with other countries to tackle climate change.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

18. What discussions he has had with his international counterparts on tackling climate change.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

In the best traditions of the UK, we see it as our duty to work with other countries to tackle the climate crisis and protect future generations. It was British leadership that saw the Climate Change Act 2008 emulated in 60 countries across the world, and it was the leadership of the UK at COP26 that now sees 80% of global GDP covered by net zero. We will maintain that tradition of leadership into COP30 in Brazil and beyond.

[Tom Hayes]

The Amazon rainforest is the lungs of the earth, but it is gasping for breath. I am pleased that COP30 will be in the heart of the Amazon. Ella, a school student from my constituency, would like to know what steps the Government will be taking to stop deforestation and back nature-based solutions. On behalf of Ella, may I urge the Secretary of State to go as far as possible and do all he can?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and Ella for her interest in and enthusiasm for this incredibly important issue. Deforestation is a terrible thing for the planet, but it is also terrible for the people who are affected—the indigenous people who live in the forest. Nature-based solutions and solutions that put indigenous people at the centre make a huge difference. This is a COP in the forest, and I think the Brazilian presidency deserves congratulations on that emphasis. It is developing a number of initiatives, including the so-called TFFF—the tropical forest forever facility—to finance the prevention of deforestation, and we are working with it on that.

Warm Home Discount

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I can commit to that. The Conservatives tell us that our fight to deliver clean power and our work to upgrade people’s homes is ideological. It is not ideological; it is down to bread and butter issues. We know that there are families struggling across the country. We were not willing to accept what we inherited as the status quo, so we are getting on with the job of reducing energy bills, because improving living standards and delivering the change we were elected to deliver is a core priority for this Government.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The Minister is right that because the Conservatives left our country exposed to fossil fuel prices, people’s wages are being swallowed up by energy costs. It is right that we are sprinting towards clean, home-grown energy as a long-term solution, and the tensions in the middle east demonstrate why that is so important. We must also get support to people right now in Bournemouth East. I welcome the fact that 220,000 families across the south-west, including my constituents, will benefit from help this winter, but my constituents want to feel a bit of breathing room—to live, not merely survive. Will the Minister confirm that tackling the cost of living is our No. 1 priority as a Government, and set out the ways in which the Government are targeting the cost of living crisis?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the cost of living. He is also right to point out that we have huge exposure to global fossil fuel markets, and at a point where we are seeing tensions and conflict in the middle east, energy security becomes so critical. So we will continue, despite the naysayers on the Opposition Benches, to sprint to deliver clean power, but while we do that we are taking action to reduce the cost of living. So, whether it is the expansion of the warm home discount, or the expansion of free school meals, or increasing the national living wage, or the action that we are taking to roll out breakfast clubs, or the action that we are taking to build record amounts of social housing, the Labour Government are committed to bettering living standards—not talking about it, but getting on and delivering the change that we were elected to deliver.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Green jobs are great jobs, and I welcome the £43 billion of private investment in clean energy since the election of this Labour Government. In order to bring down our industrial energy prices further, what steps will the Government take to get us on to clean energy that we control and off the fossil fuels that are in the control of dictators?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the huge amount of private sector investment that is coming in with clean energy. This is why, in the industrial strategy, clean energy is one of the growth-driving sectors where we have seen 10% growth in the economy. We are also seeing hundreds of thousands of jobs, which the Conservatives now seem determined to oppose. We will introduce the clean energy of the future, and that is why we are pushing for clean energy by 2030. That will bring down bills, give us energy security and create really good quality jobs.

Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

The final question is from Tom Hayes.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as this is the final question, may I commend the Minister on taking a measured and pragmatic approach at the Dispatch Box? That is in sharp contrast with the Conservative party, which seems to be continuing its journey from zombie Government to shambolic irrelevance. When I talk to investors and businesses in the energy sector, they stress the importance of a plan, whether it is that of the National Energy System Operator, or of mission control, led by Chris Stark. Will the Minister outline the importance of Great British Energy in the planned transition to the jobs of the future?

[Michael Shanks]

In terms of the tone of the debate, the Government and the Opposition will of course disagree on many things—by the sounds of it, we increasingly disagree on the importance of tackling climate change and net zero—but generally we all want to see a transition in the North sea that is fair and prosperous, particularly for the workers in that industry, to ensure that they have confidence that they will have well-paid jobs to go into. I spend every day in this job taking that incredibly seriously, and whatever disagreements we might have across the Dispatch Box, I hope that is understood. We want to build a transition that recognises that it is already under way, that thousands of jobs have been lost and that it is our duty and responsibility as a Government to ensure that we put in place the industry and jobs that come next. That is what I will spend every day doing while I am privileged to have this job.

Biomass Generation

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

After an urgent question and a statement, I hope that I will not still be standing here in 15 years’ time, and I suspect the House will support that. Let me be really clear. I do not remember Drax being the poster child for the clean energy transition. I have outlined clearly why this decision is important in terms of energy security, but we wish that we as a Government had had more options. Unfortunately, those options were not there, so we have made the best of a difficult situation to get an incredibly good deal that delivers value for money, improves sustainability and delivers on energy security. In the 2030s, I want to see our clean power system delivering cheaper bills and industrial manufacturing jobs across the country. I hope that, in 15 years, the right hon. Member and I will have a conversation about how that is delivering for our constituents.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The shadow Secretary of State talked about being under new management, and I suspect that he will be saying the same thing in a few months after the inevitable bloody coup. I commend the statement, which will do some really important things, including: capping Drax’s output; a windfall tax on Drax; millions saved by halving subsidies paid for by my constituents; and the forcing up of sustainability. It is a pragmatic solution to a disastrous inheritance. Does the Minister agree that this will be a better deal for taxpayers and consumers for our energy security and our environment?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend summarises the importance of the deal clearly. We have limited the expected rate of return for Drax to a level below that of monopolies regulated by Ofgem. We have halved the subsidies provided to Drax that were in every single deal from the Conservative party, year after year, saving £170 million each year of the agreement. We have introduced a windfall tax with 30% and 60% rates to be clawed back should Drax have excess profits. We are delivering on energy security and on tougher sustainability requirements, but at the heart of the deal is better value for money for the hard-working people of this country.

Heat Batteries: Decarbonising Homes

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Deirdre Costigan]

As I have laid out, the Government have already taken steps to increase the funding to transition to heat pumps. I am sure the Minister will have more to say on rural communities and the particular barriers they face.

Although heat pumps are extremely important in the move to wean us off gas, they do not work for every home. An estimated 20% of homes are unsuitable for heat pumps. We need to do more to break down the reasons why people can be reluctant to choose them. Air source heat pumps need outdoor space. Many of my Ealing Southall constituents live in small terraced homes or flats and do not have much outdoor space, so a heat pump is not a viable or attractive option. Many people have repurposed the space that used to house their hot water tank.

That is where innovative British firms such as Kensa in Cornwall and Tepeo in Reading come in. Both companies use heat batteries, using the same science that is behind hand-warmer packs, to store thermal energy until it is needed. Tepeo’s zero emission boiler, ZEB, uses a heat battery that automatically buys energy at cheaper times of day and releases it when required, reducing energy bills. Users do not need an outside pump; they just need a box about the size of a gas boiler. Because of their small size and their ability to plug and play without needing to do replumbing, heat batteries are a good solution for heating homes in built-up urban environments like London, including parts of Ealing Southall.

Kensa uses shared ground source heat loops that are connected to whole streets or blocks of flats. The energy is connected from the ground, is produced in networked heat pumps in each of the linked houses or flats and is then stored in Kensa’s Sunamp heat batteries. No outdoor space is needed, and it replaces the need for a hot water tank.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, may I remind Members that interventions should be concise and should not be speeches?

[Tom Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I was lucky recently to visit Kensa’s air source heat pumps in Sutton Dwellings in Chelsea. I have also visited Tepeo’s factory; it is great to see the chief executive officer in the Public Gallery today. Does my hon. Friend agree that for heat batteries to enjoy the same penetration of the market as heat pumps, it is important that they benefit from VAT relief and the same levels of subsidy so that we can decarbonise our heating?

[Deirdre Costigan]

I absolutely agree, and I will come on to exactly those points. Kensa’s approach also uses ground source heat technology, aligned with heat batteries—a cheap and efficient way of rolling out heat pumps at scale. My hon. Friend mentions a visit he made; another example is that Kensa has replaced direct electric heaters with shared ground loops alongside heat batteries in more than 270 flats across three tower blocks in Thurrock. Residents’ bills have reduced by more than 60%, which is a huge saving. Both those technologies can wean us off gas. They are examples of the kind of British manufacturing and innovation that we need to support to create good-quality jobs. However, barriers remain, and I hope that the Minister will consider ways of addressing them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for that meeting. We are working across Government to ensure that we can provide the support that the community requires after that tragic incident.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I recently visited the zero-emission boiler manufacturer Tepeo in Wokingham. Its owners were thrilled by the Government’s decision that heat batteries can qualify for the warm homes social housing fund wave 3, but expressed concern about whether they could scale up without the same subsidy support and VAT relief as heat pumps. Will the Minister meet me, and representatives of Thermal Storage UK, to discuss how we can support heat batteries, so that households can become more resilient?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of our clean power mission, and I would be very happy to meet him and representatives of the sector.

COP29

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

We do think that Wylfa has very important prospects. There is an important pipeline of nuclear projects that we are moving forward with, and we look forward to discussions about Wylfa in the coming months.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I commend the Secretary of State for his leadership and his statement, and join him in his bipartisanship. I am happy to recognise the contributions of Theresa May and Boris Johnson, but it says a lot that it takes Labour Members of Parliament to do that because Conservative Front Benchers are running so fast and so far away from those contributions. Does the Secretary of State agree that clean energy is how we achieve energy security, and that energy security is how we achieve national security when our world is in turmoil and this country faces threats like never before?

[Ed Miliband]

Both the points that my hon. Friend makes are right. I am happy to acknowledge the role of Theresa May in putting net zero into law, as well as that of Alok Sharma and even Boris Johnson, who fought to champion some of these issues. It is a real shame, and it speaks volumes, that we can say those things and the Conservatives do not.

Electricity Grid Upgrades

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I accept that the present Government have inherited a planning system and a philosophy of upgrading the national grid that is out of date.

When we were in Government, we were very slow to recognise that such a big, strategic upgrade needed a proper strategy. We started moving towards holistic network design. We commissioned a report from Charles Banner KC to look at streamlining the planning process—I will come on to putting that streamlining in place—and I very much welcome that the Government have commissioned a spatial review of the entire network, which should have been done years ago. I think we were blind to the failings of the structure inherited from the Electricity Act 1989; we should have moved much sooner.

That report should make it easier for the Government to change the out-of-date policy of a presumption in favour of pylons, which we said in our manifesto that we would review. I am very happy for the Minister to blame the previous Government for the difficulties he is facing and to change the policy accordingly, but it will be very odd if he comes to the Dispatch Box to defend what the previous Government were doing, after what the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) just said—but I suspect that that is what he will do.

I put this issue forward in a bipartisan manner. We should all be able to agree that the great grid upgrade is not going fast enough, and that we need to streamline the planning process and speed up delivery. However, we also need to mend our ideas about how we deliver it, because as I have said, undergrounding high voltage direct current cables is not only technically viable, but the most sensible and sustainable solution for the future of our entire energy network.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I would like to return to the hon. Member’s point about international comparisons and other countries nearby perhaps having a presumption in favour of overgrounding. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that Germany’s Opposition recently said that using overhead lines instead of digging underground could save the country €35 billion, and that the German political parties that previously, as part of Angela Merkel’s coalition, backed underground cables have now called for overhead lines to be given priority. Does the hon. Member agree that the picture is not quite so clearcut in mainland Europe?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

What is interesting about Germany is that its presumption was in favour of undergrounding, so the idea that that is a great big experiment and we do not know what it means is incorrect. There is plenty of expertise in Europe. When we look at cost comparisons between undergrounding and pylons, it also depends on the territory we are dealing with.

Our problem is lack of community consent, as Fintan Slye, the executive director of the National Energy System Operator, rightly says. It is a question of swings and roundabouts, but in the case of Norwich to Tilbury, the consequence of delays from trying to run roughshod over the very widespread and well-funded public opposition will be to put up the cost, which makes the cost of undergrounding advantageous over pylons. That is my point.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with the principle of what the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) says, but undergrounding DC cables has great advantages. The latest estimated cost of just one year’s delay for Norwich to Tilbury is four times more than the additional £1 billion cost of undergrounding HVDC— I hope the hon. Gentleman was listening to that: £4 billion a year for delay against £1 billion extra for DC undergrounding. I think that puts this into the field of a no-brainer. Why would we spend all that money fighting through the courts for a very unpopular scheme when we could save time and legal expense by going for a different method?

In the National Energy System Operator’s East Anglia network study, which was published earlier this year, undergrounding HVDC was set out as alternative option 8. The great advantage of undergrounding HVDC is that there will be far less public resistance. Moreover, as I have said, the planning procedures could be streamlined— as recommended to the Government recently by Charles Banner—to conform to the regime for installing new major water pipes. If we had the same planning regime for underground cables as we did for water pipes, we could speed up the process for undergrounding cables.

Underground HVDC offers a scalable, future-proof solution that can be delivered with far less environmental impact, with public support and much more quickly. Schemes without pylons that are already planned by National Grid—for example, in north-east England—are being delivered without public opposition or long delays, which seems to be an enormous advantage for the Government’s objective of decarbonising the grid. There is no comparable resistance from campaign groups, which is clear evidence that underground HVDC gets public support, making it a far more practical and feasible solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

The hon. Gentleman knows well, I hope, that my commitment to our entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is just as firm as his, and when I speak about the UK, I reference Strangford and Northern Ireland more widely. The situation in Northern Ireland is unique in that the number of homes that are off-grid far outweighs the number of off-grid homes in mainland GB. That brings its own complexities with regard to decarbonisation, moving away from gas or oil, and boilers for heating and other such purposes. I completely understand the unique complexities of decarbonising in a Northern Irish environment, and he is absolutely right that when the Government take decisions on UK-wide infrastructure projects, they should be cognisant of Northern Ireland’s unique situation, being in an all-Ireland grid and having so many off-grid properties. That should never be far from our minds.

I thank the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer), the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), as ever, and the hon. Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) and for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for their contributions. I did not agree with all of them, but they were all very thought through. I know that everybody in this room, whatever their perspective on how we achieve a cleaner future, agrees that upgrading the grid is important. How we go about that is the issue concerning us today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex eloquently highlighted the strength of feeling among communities across the country being asked to take on the burden of what is being proposed. I mentioned that we shared notes, and that is because my constituency, like that of my hon. Friend, faces the threat of huge energy infrastructure bills over the next few years. Communities fear the genuine threat of industrialisation sweeping rural landscapes and the impact on communities as a result.

In my West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine constituency, the energy industry is omnipresent. It is home to the subsea capital of Europe and on the edge of the oil and gas capital of Europe. Many of my constituents work, or have worked, in the energy industry. Many are involved in the design, construction or installation of underground or offshore pipelines for oil, gas or electric cables. If someone digs deep enough in my constituency, they will find national gas pipelines buried underground. The only indication of them being there are the little yellow marker signs on the surface warning people to beware and not to dig anywhere close.

I say that because I stress that my constituents and so many others around the country who are raising this issue are not doing so because they are being needlessly obstructive. They are not doing it because they are being anti-net zero, or because they do not agree the grid needs to be upgraded. They just know, due to their experience working in the industry, that there are other ways forward. It is for this reason, and the overwhelming desire on the Conservative side of the House to exhaust all the options in our pursuit to find the best technology at the best cost that would deliver our decarbonised grid—and not, as the National Energy System Operator report suggested, that we favour pace over perfection—and to do so in a way that does not blight so many communities and our great British countryside, that we committed in our manifesto to take a different approach.

[Tom Hayes]

We have heard in this debate about the importance of expediency. Does he agree that, uniquely, we live in a world in turmoil? We see growing international threats, and one of the surest ways in which Britain can protect ourselves against them is by being energy independent. As a consequence, we need not just to move quickly to meet our climate crisis—our energy defences are down, and it is important that we can protect ourselves in the future.

[Andrew Bowie]

I could not agree more. Indeed, I long for a day when we are much more energy independent. That is why I take such issue with Labour’s position on the North sea and the wilful destruction of our oil and gas industry, leaving us open to further outside influence and reliant on hostile states. That is one of the reasons why I think that we need to increase our energy security, and why I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to improve it.

This is not about whether we do that; it is about how we go about it and about taking decisions now in the best long-term interests of people and of the energy security of this country. I do not believe that the way that the Government are proceeding at the minute is in the best long-term interests of the communities of this country. If we get this right, work together, get to a solution where communities feel they have a stake in the energy transition, deliver the clean future and become energy independent, as I used to say when I was the Minister, that is a win, win, win—but we are a long way from that just yet.

I mentioned community benefits briefly. In June 2023, I visited East Anglia to begin the consultation process on the community benefits package. On 7 December 2023, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined the framework of that package. I wonder whether the Minister present might be able to give us an update as to where the process is and where the Government have reached on community benefits—