British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

First, I would like to declare an interest: I am a former coal miner and a member of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme.

In the 1950s, there were over 700,000 men working in the pits in this country—people like my grandads, great grandad, dad and uncles—in fact, I cannot remember any male member of my family not working down the pit in the 1950s and 1960s. When I went underground for the first time in the 1980s, there were still around 170,000 men working in the coal mine. Now we have probably about 112,000 former miners still living. There are around 38,000 members in the BCSSS, and of course many of them will be women—women who worked in the industry, or widows of men who did. I am no spring chicken—I am getting on a bit—but I am one of the youngest members in the scheme, the average age of a member being about 78 years. One of the questions that we must ask ourselves is: how many members of the scheme will be left in 10 years’ time? I reckon there will be half as many as there are today, because members of both schemes—the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the BCSSS—are dying every single day. All we are asking for is one simple thing: fairness in the surplus sharing arrangements.

It is hard to explain what it was like to work down a coalmine—there is one other hon. Member in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who knows what it was like—but it is like nothing else. I worked at four different pits in my time as a coalminer. I started off at Sutton colliery and ended up at Welbeck colliery in north Notts. I did not need an alarm clock to get up to go to work on a day shift—I could hear my dad’s alarm clock going off. He would wake up and he would get me up, and he would take me to Sutton colliery, where we would do a shift together.

Most sons are proud to follow their dads into the workplace, and it was no different for me. I was very proud to follow my dad into the coalmine. I grew up in a coalmining community, where lads followed their dads into the pit—that was the norm. It was the best education I ever had, to be honest—better than any school or college—because it taught me how working-class people think. Those tough, hard men who worked down the pit were products of where they were born. If they had been born in a village like mine 60, 70, 80 or 90 years ago, there was a high chance that they would end up in a coalmine. Those men did incredibly dangerous jobs to put food on the table, pay the rent or a mortgage, and maybe, if they were lucky, get a week in a caravan in Skegness once a year. That was our life.

Mining was more than just a job. The miners did not stop turning coal once they left the pit, had a bath and went home—they would still be talking about it in the miners’ welfare at night-time, or at a football match on a Saturday. It was just a way of life that was bred into the mining communities. There will be ex-miners watching the debate who will know exactly what I am talking about when I say that the experience of working at a pit was different from working in any other industry. There was the smell of the pit head bath, which I can still smell now; the sound of laughter in the bath as hundreds of men stood there naked, washing each other’s backs to scrub away the coaldust, the dirt and the grime; and the feeling of your ears popping as you went through the air doors to reach shaft side, before you went underground. What ex-miners really remember is the danger, the noise and the heat, and the sense of unity they had with their fellow working miners. It is the sort of unity we see now among the ex-miners who are still here, fighting for a fairer deal under both pension schemes.

I started in the pit a year after the miners’ strike of 1984-85. My dad had been a striking miner. He was on strike because he knew that closing the pits would kill communities. He was right, and 40 years later, we are still recovering. It was the fault of politicians and union leaders that communities were divided. They killed an industry that had served us well in this country. Some men, like my dad, went on strike and others worked. Looking back, I have no problem with either group. I knew men in South Yorkshire who wanted to work but were too scared to go to work, and likewise I knew men in Nottinghamshire who wanted to go on strike, but they thought it was pointless—and it was pointless. Communities of decent, hard-working miners were ripped apart because they were being used by people in high places, who had personal scores to settle. Well, we have politicians and people in high places now who have the chance to make amends for this injustice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing the debate. I think it is the third time that he has brought the issue before the House, and I congratulate him on that. The issue is a matter of basic dignity and fair play, because this is about the miners’ own money, paid in from hard, back-breaking labour. Does he agree that the Minister must commit to scrapping the outdated 50:50 split entirely, and ensure that 100% of future surpluses go directly into the pockets of those elderly pensioners and their widows, some of whom live in my constituency of Strangford, so that absolute, total pension justice can finally be delivered?

[Lee Anderson]

It is heart-warming to know that former miners are living out their final years in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He is quite right; they need to live in dignity, and a fairer surplus sharing agreement would allow them to live a more comfortable life. Let us not forget that once they get the extra money, they will spend it in the local community.

I have to give credit to the Government for the investment reserve fund for both schemes. They made a promise, and they stuck to it—fair play. But we must battle on to get more justice for the miners, because they deserve it for the service that they have given to our great country.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

It is a delight to hear a Nottinghamshire voice; as the hon. Gentleman knows, I was an adopted son of Nottinghamshire for a long time. He is making a case for the nobility of labour, and that case is too rarely made in this place. Working men deserve the same respect as anybody who learned at a university, as I and many people here did. That nobility of labour is personified by the hard-working miners whom he describes, many of whom holidayed in Lincolnshire—and retired there, too, as he well knows.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his wisdom, and he is quite right. I am sure that many of the ex-miners watching this debate will be very encouraged by his intervention.

I have two questions for the Minister. Will he commit to working with the scheme’s trustees to ensure that 100% of any surplus is shared with any members and their spouses?

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

There is a reason why this request is actually fair and just. My hon. Friend talks so evocatively about the dangers undertaken by coalminers going underground, and in today’s world, that is almost impossible to imagine. That is the key difference. This was one of the most dangerous occupations in the country, but it literally kept the lights on and kept industry moving. For that reason, above all, justice and fairness must surely prevail.

[Lee Anderson]

Justice and fairness are the two key words in this debate.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

When I was elected nearly two years ago, the very first person to contact me was a BCSSS member. There are about 750 BCSSS members in my constituency, and the campaign has certainly been part of my heart ever since I was elected. I know that many BCSSS members will be watching tonight and listening to the debate, and I am sure that the stories you tell will ensure that they are—

[Jo White]

May I take this opportunity to reassure those BCSSS members that, whoever is the next Prime Minister, this issue will continue to be the No. 1 issue for most of my colleagues and the Members here today?

[Lee Anderson]

Those are very wise words. It is very encouraging to hear that whoever becomes the next PM will treat this issue seriously.

Let me go back to my original request. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the scheme can share 100% of any future surplus with all members and their spouses from its next valuation? I think that will be in March 2027. Will that be announced in the autumn Budget? That is my first ask.

The trustees have asked if they can be given total control over future surpluses. The scheme has £7.8 billion in assets. That is a lot of money—our money, and we want it back. We are not asking for much.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever we do with the BCSSS surplus, we should do with the mineworkers’ pension scheme as well? We must ensure that mineworkers are looked after, and that the surplus goes back to the scheme’s members, too.

[Lee Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Members of both schemes need the justice that they deserve.

I live in a coalmining community; I was born there, and I have lived there all my life. I feel incredibly proud of the contribution that my community has made to this country, but I feel incredibly sad when I look at what has happened since all the pits closed in the ’80s and ’90s. As I said, that is because of union leaders and politicians in this place who destroyed our industry, and they will never be forgiven for doing that. However, politicians in this place now have a chance to make some amends and give the miners the justice that they deserve.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

A number of years ago, the Business and Trade Committee came forward with recommendations, which were totally ignored by the Government of the day. The Labour party has been in office for just under two years and has made tremendous strides, which has had a huge impact on members of both schemes. Does the hon. Member agree that is the case?

[Lee Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I agree 100% with the point he has made.

I thank all Members who have turned up tonight—I would have expected a few more, because there are probably 200 coalfield constituencies in this country. Please, Minister, give justice for the miners.

British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

Before I start, I declare an interest in this debate as a member of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, which, for the purpose of this debate, I will refer to as the BCSSS. Before I go on, I want to say a special thanks to the BCSSS Facebook campaign group, which has been a great source of support and advice. The group represents more than 2,500 scheme members, and I am sure many will be watching this debate right now.

All the arguments for a fairer deal for BCSSS members have been heard before, so I want to take this opportunity to speak as an ex-coalminer, and as the only member of the BCSSS, I think, in this Parliament—and yes, I have a financial interest in this, but I feel that I am qualified to speak up on behalf of members of the BCSSS. I know that he hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), another ex-coalminer, is present; I am sure he will support many of the things I have to say.

I am the last generation of coalminers in my family. I followed my dad, my granddad, my great-grandads and my great-great-grandads into the pits in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. In fact, I cannot think of any male family member before me who did not spend some time underground.

I worked at four different pits. Miners will usually say that the best pit they worked at was their first pit, and my first pit was Sutton colliery in Ashfield, north Nottinghamshire. I started there about a year after the miners’ strike in the 1980s. It was a great pit, but this was a pit where, sadly, just a few decades earlier, five men had been killed in an explosion. I went on to do my coalface training at Creswell colliery in Derbyshire, where in 1950, yet another disaster had occurred: 80 boys and men lost their lives in an underground fire. We have had countless disasters, horrific accidents and nasty things going on, but still men and boys went down the pit—the black hole—to do a shift, digging coal out to fuel our nation.

It is hard to describe what it is like to work underground; there is nothing like it. It is dark and dangerous. It can be red hot in some places, yet freezing cold in others. There are no toilets, as the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington can tell us. We just had to dig a hole and then cover it up. It is hard to explain what it is like crawling up and down a coalface, which is 29 inches high and 250 yards long, with a shearing machine spitting out coal, dust, heat and oil. It was a horrible feeling.

It is hard to explain what it is like to carry a steel ring on your shoulder—a girder—with your mate, on uneven ground and in dusty conditions. It is hard to explain what it is like to bandage up a workmate who has just been trapped, has had a big chunk ripped out of him and has lost a few fingers and half a foot. He has to be put on a stretcher and carried out to the pit bottom. On one occasion, that was seven miles of the pit—seven miles underground. That is from here to the edge of London.

But that is what we did—we did that for a living, day in, day out. We didn’t moan. Towards the end of my mining career—the last three years of it—I worked as a deputy underground. I was responsible for the health and safety of the men in my district. When I became a deputy, I was transferred from the mineworkers’ pension scheme to the BCSSS. I did not have any say in it; they just put me in it. That is what they did. While we continued working—digging the coal to fuel the nation and keep the lights on—all we asked for was a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. The pits are long gone now, but there are still thousands of ex-miners and their widows in the coalfield communities—

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

My constituency of Sherwood Forest has the second largest BCSSS membership in the country. Almost 40% of the membership is women—women who were formerly employed in the mining industry, and women who were the spouses of members who have sadly died. Does the hon. Member agree that it is vital that the Government deliver justice for this scheme not only for constituencies such ours in Nottinghamshire but also for women?

[Lee Anderson]

Yes, I will come on to the women who worked in our industry a bit later, but the hon. Lady is absolutely correct. All we ask for now that the pits have gone—we still have the communities—is a fair day’s pay from our own pot of money. That pot of money is the £2.3 billion investment reserve fund. That is our money. We paid it in. All we are asking is for the Government to give it back to us.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I would never have known about what happened in the mines, but for the stories that he has told us. He has told those stories in debates in this House in the past. I thank him for his service. We congratulate the Nationwide building society for doing the right thing and sharing the bonus that it earns with its customers. Therefore, with great respect, Minister, the fact that the Government seem to be dragging their heels on seeing mineworkers receive rightful dividends from their back-breaking, life-altering work is jarring and must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

[Lee Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. As always, he makes a fantastic contribution and I agree with every single word that he has just said.

The Labour party was founded on the backs of coalminers, and I think it is time for the current Labour Government to repay those miners. They should remember that the miners paid their union subs; they helped to bankroll the Labour party. Let us be honest, the Labour party has supplied some good ex-mining MPs to this House. There is one sat there tonight. There was one who used to sit over there. I do not agree with their politics, but they are great MPs.

Let us remind ourselves that about 4,000 or 5,000 women are part of the BCSSS. We could not have done our job underground if it were not for those women, who did a great job. Then there are the widows of the ex-miners who would love to see a few extra quid in their bank account each month when fuel bills are going through the roof. About 2,000 members of the BCSSS die every year, and there are less than 40,000 members still in the scheme.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

The hon. Member and the House will know that I am a big supporter of returning the reserve to the fund, particularly because many members are dying. The hon. Member sat as a Conservative Member on the Government Benches for a number of years and, indeed, was deputy chairman of the Conservative party while they were in government. Given the promises that Boris Johnson made in Mansfield in the 2019 election, why did the hon. Member do nothing to correct this injustice, since so many members of the scheme are passing away each year? Would he agree that it is somewhat hypocritical to now be championing this issue?

[Lee Anderson]

If the hon. Member had studied Hansard and paid a little more attention to Parliament during the past five years, he would know about the representations I made. In fact, I had my own Adjournment debate on the MPS. I met the former Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the miners’ asks, so it is a bit unfair of the hon. Member to try to score points in a very serious debate. I would have hoped that he would come here to support me in this debate, instead of trying to score political points. I do not think it is a good look, and I am sure that the BCSSS members in Mansfield and across Ashfield will not be very happy with his contribution.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Lee Anderson]

I will make some progress. As I said, there are 40,000 members left in the scheme, and it will not be that long until there are just a few thousand of us left. Meanwhile, miners and widows die without getting the justice they deserve.

Members may find it hard to believe, but I am 58 years old, and I am one of the youngest members in the scheme. Many members are over 70 years old. In fact, the average age of a member in the scheme is 75, and time is running out for these old colliers to get what they deserve.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Lee Anderson]

I will make some progress. It is worth remembering that when the last member of the MPS dies, the billions of pounds in the fund go straight to the Treasury and the Government of the day, and they can spend that money on whatever they like.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I want to put it on the record that we have seen a transformative intervention by this Labour Government on the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and over 100,000 former mineworkers already received their first pension increase in November last year. I wonder whether the hon. Member might want to congratulate the Government on that innovation.

[Lee Anderson]

If the hon. Member shows a little patience, he will hear me move on to that later.

The previous Labour manifesto stated that the reserve funds of both the MPS and the BCSSS would be released to members, yet the BCSSS was omitted from Labour’s manifesto in 2024. Maybe the Minister can explain why that was. She may be aware—obviously the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) is not aware of this—that during the last Parliament, I continually pressed the Government for a fairer deal on the MPS, and I was knocked back at every single opportunity. Credit where credit is due, this Labour Government have stuck by their word, and the members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme are a lot better off under this Labour Government due to the extra money in their pay packet.

[Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

Time is of the essence. While colleagues across the House may differ on these issues, we represent constituents who continue to suffer from the historic injustice created by the hon. Member’s former Tory Government. Thousands of miners have died without justice, with 2,000 passing every year. This is about fairness, and the Government have acted, but does he agree that they are right to resolve this swiftly so that no more families wait in vain for their money?

[Lee Anderson]

I think that the hon. Member is getting a little confused; she probably needs a history lesson. There was a Labour Government for 13 years from the ’90s that could have put this right—it works both ways. It is unfair to blame just the Conservative Government; I would blame both Governments.

To go back to the surplus from the MPS, I thank the Labour Government for giving the mineworkers their much deserved reserve fund, but I gently remind them that they should act to implement the full findings of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s 2021 report. By the way, that is Reform UK’s policy.

Sue Edwards from Ashfield is a BCSSS pensioner who has asked me to keep pushing on this issue. She said that although women members never worked underground, their contribution should never be forgotten. Sue is right: we should never forget the contribution made by women at our collieries.

There are about 800 members of the BCSSS in Ashfield. One of them is Paddy Gumley, who will be watching the debate right now. He sent me an email yesterday, which said:

“Dear Lee,

Thank you for your email regarding the forthcoming debate on the BCSSS…We will watch out to ensure that the Treasury give sensible answers to your questions…and hopefully…will…bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. We are quite happy for you to use our names should you think it necessary. Again, I wish to advise you that I am now over 80 years old and have recently been treated for cancer, so time…is of the essence.”

I think we all know what Paddy means: in plain English, “Please give me my money before I die.”

None of us is getting any younger, and transferring the investment fund now to members would allow pensioners to live a more dignified life in their final years. It would also put tens of millions of pounds back into local coalfield communities, helping local shops and businesses prosper. Let us not forget that if these pensioners get this extra money, they will be taxed on that extra revenue, which will go back to the Exchequer.

The trustees have two simple requests: the return of the £2.3 billion investment reserve to the members as soon as possible this year, and a commitment to review how any future surplus will be shared out after the investment reserve is returned. I have yet to find a coalfield MP who does not agree with those simple requests. Most coalfields are now represented by Labour MPs, and I am really hopeful that in the four years they will still be here, they will put pressure on the Treasury and the Government to provide justice for members of the BCSSS.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I sincerely hope that many of the Labour Members in the Chamber will be here for more than four years. The key point that the hon. Member alluded to is the need for us to work effectively together, recognising that, as he described, we have a whole range of constituents who would benefit from the BCSSS being treated differently. Does he therefore welcome the constructive way in which Labour Members are working?

[Lee Anderson]

Yes, I like to be constructive. The hon. Member for Mansfield has not been so constructive; he has used the debate to try to score political points. I am using the debate to try to get justice for the members of the BCSSS.

The trustees were disappointed by the previous Conservative Government, and they are a little bit disappointed with the current Labour Government, who they feel have dragged their heals in dealing with the BCSSS. They have dealt with the mineworkers’ pension scheme much quicker. We are all ex-mineworkers, and we should be treated fairly.

I know the trustees have met the Minister today. I have spoken to the chief integrated funding adviser and the feedback is that it was a positive meeting, and the Minister once again appeared receptive to the requests put forward by the trustees but stopped short of saying she fully supports those requests.

There is a very simple solution to all this. Just give us our money back—it is our money—and let us discuss the future surplus sharing agreements. We ex-miners should not be a cash cow for the Treasury. I could go into all the facts and figures in this debate, but it is simple. It is about giving back to the mining community what it is owed. Not only did the miners of the past help create the Labour party, but they gave their money to the cause through their union donations. It is time to pay back the miners; there should be no excuse.

Let us imagine two brothers in their 70s who spent 40 years each down the pit. One is in the MPS and the other in the BCSSS. They worked side by side underground. The brother in the MPS has just had a 50% uplift in his pension thanks to this Labour Government, but the one in the BCSSS has had nothing. That cannot be right; it is not fair.

I hear people in this bubble in Westminster say that young people would not go down the pit these days, but you are all wrong—every single one of you. In the coalfield communities, mining, hard graft and a sense of working-class pride are in our DNA. When the time comes for mining communities to step forward and go back underground, the descendants of our brave miners will do their duty. That time will come, mark my words. In the meantime, it is time for this place to deliver justice for the miners.

I would like to hear the Minister state from that Dispatch Box that she fully supports the trustees’ two main requests and that she agrees that the whole of the investment reserve fund, and not just part of it, should be shared out. There was a saying when I worked underground and all the pits were shutting. It was: “Have we heard owt, duck?” That is what ex-miners are saying right now to their pit mates, so I say to the Minister, who I know has been speaking to the Treasury and the trustees: have you heard owt, duck?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson]

The Minister has been good today, actually, at the Dispatch Box, so I thank her for that. A lot of positive things have come out of this Adjournment debate. I have one question: is the scheme running at a surplus and if so, by how much?

[Sarah Jones]

I will not give figures, but the scheme is doing well. That is in part because of the trustees and the actions they have taken, and the investments and process they have undertaken. While the 2015 situation caused there to be a change in the way it was managed, it is now running well, and people can be reassured about that. I recognise that for many in coalfield communities, delivery on the mineworkers’ pension scheme has only heightened the sense of injustice about the BCSSS—I hear and feel that and am determined to take action on it.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

If we get into conversations about different types of steel, it is like the Facebook update “It’s complicated”, right? It is complicated. For some things, we absolutely need primary steel; and for some things, we do not. That is why we are carrying out a fundamental review of steelmaking and the need for it here in the UK. Those results will come out soon. The right hon. Member is right that the GMB has been an advocate for this, as have Community and Unite. We talk to them regularly about British Steel. I have not failed to notice the slightly odd position that we find ourselves in today. I repeat that we are looking at all options. The House will understand that we are talking about large amounts of taxpayers’ money, which we have to spend in the right way, in a sensible way, and in a way that will get us what we need. That is what we are looking at, and it is what we will do.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

These steelworkers do not want visits from the DWP. They do not even want visits from out-of-touch Labour Back-Bench MPs. What they want is their jobs: they want to make steel. It is interesting to hear from the Minister that all options are on the table. Do they include Reform UK’s policy of scrapping net zero and renationalising British Steel?

[Sarah Jones]

It is good to hear that the workers in British Steel do not want visits from politicians; I assume the hon. Member, and his party, will take his own advice. I hope that he will understand that we cannot talk about the conversations that we are having with British Steel. It would be very disruptive to the process, the workforce there, the supply chain and commercial confidentiality. I can only repeat that our preference is that we come to an agreement with British Steel based on commercial terms, with Government support, but we are looking at all options and nothing is off the table.

Employment Rights Bill

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Becky Gittins]

Some comments from Opposition Members today have made it very clear to the public what the Opposition think about people’s rights at work.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

The hon. Member is making a passionate and inspiring speech about the national minimum wage. Is she aware that just last year, the leader of the Scottish Labour party admitted that his family business was not paying members of staff the living wage? Does she think that is rank hypocrisy?

[Becky Gittins]

I think that everyone should be on board with the national minimum wage and the living wage. I hope that we can encourage all Members of all parties to get on board. I am very pleased to hear that commitment and concern from the Reform party. It is unexpected, but I respect it.

On Second Reading, I welcomed this legislation as a central tenet of this Government’s policy of putting working people at the heart of our economy and making work pay. I am delighted to see the Bill return to the Chamber, and I pay tribute to those who served on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill modernises the UK’s outdated employment laws, bringing in more than 30 much-needed and welcome reforms, including: day one rights of employment, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, abolishing fire and rehire, establishing bereavement leave, increasing protections from sexual harassment, introducing equality menopause action plans, strengthening rights for pregnant workers and establishing the Fair Work Agency.

I am pleased that, during the scrutiny process, the Government have tabled amendments to strengthen protections for low-paid workers, including those relating to statutory sick pay. In real terms, 1 million people on zero-hours contracts will benefit from the guaranteed hours policy. Nine million people who have been with their employer for less than two years will benefit from day-one rights relating to the unfair dismissal policy. Because of the Fair Work Agency, holiday pay rights will be enforced for the very first time.

The measures before us strengthen the Fair Work Agency. New clause 57 will enable it to bring proceedings against a non-compliant employer in an employment tribunal, in place of the worker. New clause 58 enables the provision of legal advice or representation for those who have become a party to civil proceedings related to employment or trade union law.

Although the vast majority of employers across the country, including hundreds in Clwyd East, will certainly obey the law, there are still those that sadly do not. A Citizens Advice report states that higher-paid workers are 50% more likely than lower-paid individuals to bring an employment tribunal claim, despite the fact that lower-paid individuals are more likely to have their rights violated. As Unison points out, leaving the burden of challenging workplace injustice to individual workers seeking redress at tribunal compounds inequalities of power in the UK labour market.

The Low Pay Commission figures highlight key reasons to implement these important measures. We know, for instance, that 20% of workers were paid less than minimum wage in 2023, and that nearly 1 million workers did not get any holiday pay. The agency will bring together existing state enforcement functions, and will be a single place to which workers and employers can turn for help. I am pleased that the agency will aim to resolve issues upstream by supporting employers that want to comply. I understand from evidence gathered by the Bill Committee that there was considerable support for a single enforcement body in place of what is currently quite a fractured system. On accountability, the Bill requires an annual report on the Fair Work Agency’s enforcement actions, and will allow Parliament to monitor progress in protecting workers’ rights.

I am encouraged to hear that, to produce its strategy, the Fair Work Agency will consult an advisory board made up of trade unions, businesses and independent experts. It is vital that we continue our collaborative approach in developing employment legislation and policy that is pro-business, pro-worker and, ultimately, pro-growth. I welcome the new clauses and the Bill as a whole. It is an important part of the Government’s strategy to move our economy forward, improve work security and ensure greater productivity.

Steel Industry

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) on securing this timely debate.

Part of the British steel site at Scunthorpe falls within my Brigg and Immingham constituency, so needless to say I take a keen interest in its future. The site is known across the country and further afield for the steel it produces, which is top-quality virgin steel made from raw materials. This method of production results in products used for rail tracks and tyre wire, all the way to cruise ships and the Shard. British steel can be found all over the world. The steelworkers who make this world-class product are understandably proud of the skills they possess.

There is widespread, cross-party agreement that steel is incredibly important for everything we do, from defence to growth, which the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned. If anything can be defined as a core industry—one of genuine strategic importance—it must be steel.

Workers and their families in my constituency and across northern Lincolnshire are incredibly concerned. They have heard rumours and seen press reports in recent weeks that suggest an early end to the imports of coke, the imminent closure of blast furnaces and escalating plans to import steel from the other side of the world to replace the products they make. Understandably, they want to know once and for all whether the rumours are true. They want certainty on whether the plan is to keep the blast furnaces running at least until electric arc furnaces are fully operational—does that still stand?

Prior to the election, Labour candidates stood on a platform of support for the UK steel industry, and billions of pounds were pledged. My constituents have not forgotten what they were told. They want to know where those billions are going and they want to see them spent in Scunthorpe. Will the Minister level with workers at the Scunthorpe site and set out exactly what this Government’s intentions are? Do they want to keep a domestic steel industry, like many countries around the world, or do they not?

The absolute least that the workforce at Scunthorpe deserve is for the Government to be completely frank with them on this issue. Do the Government value the work of steelmakers in Scunthorpe? Do they value the strategic capability of our nation to make our own steel? Do they want to keep domestic steel production for use in infrastructure and defence? How and when are they going secure that? If they cannot answer yes to those questions, can they explain what is so exceptional about the UK that means we cannot aspire to maintain a steel industry? The reality is that maintaining a steel industry will always demand support from the public purse. Without a steel industry, we are in effect admitting that we no longer aspire to be a major manufacturing nation and accepting that we do not value the defence industry.

In discussions on steel there are those who like to criticise the efforts of the previous Government. Although I do not want to spend the short time I have on political point scoring, I do think it is worth setting out some of the realities. The Conservative Government extended trade tariffs on steel products twice in the last Parliament; they did this having listened to MPs and businesses. It is a fact that they brought forward measures to help energy costs, and that they paid workers’ wages at Scunthorpe for many months to maintain jobs, skills and the site itself during the sale of the business five years ago. These were tangible, proactive decisions made by a Government who understood the importance of steel to our nation.

The former Member for Scunthorpe, Holly Mumby-Croft, mentioned steel over 200 times in questions and debates during her time in the House. I recognise that the current hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) is a Minister, meaning, I presume, that he supports the Government’s policies in relation to the steel industry. If his mailbag is similar to mine, he will know the scale of anxiety across the whole area. Just last week he was calling for a deal at Scunthorpe similar to the one in south Wales, where thousands of workers are set to lose their jobs. I want to see a policy that supports jobs, produces top-quality steel and supports the whole supply chain, which Scunthorpe relies on.

Under the last Labour Government, steel production and jobs halved in the UK. Will the Minister reassure workers at the Scunthorpe site that this Labour Government do not intend to repeat that legacy? I understand that the Minister is involved in current negotiations and will not be able to share all the detail the discussions. If that is the case, can she at least give the workers some clarity on when she expects there to be an announcement on the future of the site? Will she also reassure residents that she is working with North Lincolnshire council’s leader Rob Waltham, who proactively travelled to China a few weeks ago to meet the owners in person? He is taking a front-and-centre role in putting together a masterplan for the site to ensure that jobs and opportunities are brought to the area. He must be fully supported by the Government in that work; will the Minister confirm that that support will be offered?

I am conscious that there are those who will challenge the continuation of blast furnace steelmaking on environmental grounds, but it is quite clear that ending the production of virgin steel in the UK, and then importing virgin steel from abroad, would simply be offshoring our own emissions and adding the emissions involved in the transport of the steel to the UK. We should certainly not consider patting ourselves on the back for making environmental improvements if the Government’s plan is simply to allow the same or worse levels of emissions to be created elsewhere and for the steel then to be brought to the UK on diesel ships.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

The hon. Member is making a great speech and makes a great point. Does he agree that if we are going to go down this road of net zero madness and make our steel more expensive, we should ban steel and steel products from other countries that are made in blast furnaces?

[Martin Vickers]

There would certainly be a case for the point the hon. Member makes. I gently point out that net zero is actually crucial to the economy of northern Lincolnshire, which I represent—I am thinking of the Humber Zero project and similar schemes.

I think you are urging me to come to a conclusion, Mrs Harris, so I will miss the next two or three pages out. I will say that whatever deal is reached now is in this Government’s hands. This an industry that, if lost, will be lost forever. I call on the Minister to redouble her efforts to secure the future of steelmaking in Scunthorpe and throughout the country. It is hard to exaggerate how crucial this is to Scunthorpe, to northern Lincolnshire and to the UK as a whole. We must bring this situation to a conclusion speedily to avoid the anxiety that workers are currently experiencing.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) on securing the debate. As many hon. Members will know, I have a background in the steel industry, so, rather than recite all of my interests, I simply refer people to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I listened very carefully to the speech from the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. There were a few points of difference, but, actually, there was much on which I agreed, so I look forward to him and his colleagues coming forward and supporting the Government’s steel strategy in due course.

Turning to the position in which we find ourselves in the steel industry, the Government have an unenviable task as a result of the legacy that we were left by the previous Government. I listened when the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) talked about the changes to tariffs made by the previous Government. They did make those changes, but they stuck rigidly to a suite of policies that denied the possibility of private sector capital investment coming into the UK’s steel industry by making it unviable. I know that well from the international investors I worked with in the industry. They were very keen to invest in the UK, but we could never get an appropriate rate of return as a direct result of policies pursued by that Government.

The Conservative Government knew that well; they knew it when the Redcar blast furnace closed in 2015 and when they stood back and let it fail for the want of the purchase of some coal. At the time, it was the most productive and efficient blast furnace in Europe. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham mentioned Scunthorpe; prior to 2020, the Conservative Government poured £1 billion into Scunthorpe but did not invest any of that money in transitioning to new technology that would have actually created a great future for people in Scunthorpe, and a return for the taxpayer, too. Instead, they sold the plant off cheaply.

Therefore, I do not envy the position of my hon. and right hon. colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade, who are wrestling with this legacy. Essentially, they are putting out the fires of the previous Government, and we will see, when the steel strategy has been brought forward, how we can create a bright future for the industry. We need to do that, and I support the calls to do it, but I think that the challenge is not actually about adherence to net zero; it is about adherence to a different ideology, which has been to assume that the steel industry operates in a free market and that we can treat it as such. It does not. Other countries around the world support their steel industries, so we need to create a level playing field for investment in our steel industry, too. If we do that then we can attract billions of pounds of private sector investment into our industry, as countries such as Austria, Sweden, Germany, France and so on do.

Over the past 10 years we have seen the UK steel industry collapse to the same size as Belgium’s. Surely the UK should have the ambition to at least be as good as Belgium and have a steel industry that can serve us as well as the Belgian steel industry serves its country. Of course, we can do that to compete globally and to create the products that we need for our green transition. The previous Government knew that quite well: a report on confidence and capabilities, which I co-authored, can be found on the Government website from 2017. It identified gaps in plate steels for offshore wind, seamless tubes for nuclear power and other areas as well. The previous Government made no effort to fill those gaps because, of course, they turned their back on private sector investment.

It is important that the steel strategy is brought forward in a way that will attract private sector investment and enable us to accelerate the green transition of our steel industry. Here I come to the point of difference with Opposition Members: the green transition is not an ideology, it is an economic imperative. We need to move away from blast furnaces because they are unproductive compared with the latest steel technologies. Steel plants operating electric arc furnaces are five times more productive than those operating blast furnaces.

[Lee Anderson]

indicated dissent.

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Member chunters about it, but the most productive steel plant in the world is based in the USA. It is entirely privately funded and produces the same quality of steel as Port Talbot at the same quantity with one fifth of the workforce, because it is automated and it uses electric arc furnaces. If we get energy prices right, we can make that investment here and we can produce those steels too.

The UK is the second largest exporter of scrap in the world. That is a valuable natural resource that we could use in the UK, but we do need primary steelmaking and we need it to use the most efficient technologies. I am afraid, for those people who adhere to blast furnace technology, that that is not the blast furnace. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister bringing forward the steel strategy, and to supporting it and debating it further. I look forward to a bright future for steel in the UK.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for securing the debate, and for making probably the best speech so far of this Parliament—it was absolutely fantastic. Government Members are harping on about the steel strategy. I can assure them that steelworkers will be frightened to death of that strategy, because it will cost jobs and destroy our steel industry and our communities. I fear the steel strategy.

In the 19th century, this great country of ours was the world leader in steel production. Over 40% of the world’s steel was made right here in this country. I do not live a million miles away from Sheffield—15 minutes up the road—and not far away from Scunny. They were great industrial towns that drove our economy and provided hundreds of thousands of jobs, including in the wider community. They built up communities, and it is a shame that the Labour Government seem intent on destroying even more of the few communities that we have left.

Our country was built on coal and steel. Throughout the midlands and the north, we drove the industrial revolution. We used to export steel and coal, and now what are we doing? We have gone backwards. China is making over 1 billion tonnes of steel a year; we are making about 5.6 million tonnes. China, by the way, is a world leader in renewables, yet it is still opening coal-fired power stations to make steel, which it can export all around the world.

If we think about it, we are actually carbon emission nimbys. We are quite happy to import steel and products made from steel that have been made with blast furnaces from 60 or 70 countries around the world, but we say that we cannot do it here. That is hypocrisy of the highest level. I have friends who work in the steel industry and they are seeing a real downturn at the moment —they are struggling. They are struggling to pay the bills and to make their business work. The industry is in terminal decline, I fear.

The collapse of the Port Talbot steelworks means that we are now the only advanced nation in the world that cannot make its own virgin steel. It is absolutely ridiculous. We have Russia at war with Ukraine, and we are living in uncertain times. Over the past few years and during the last Parliament, we saw the problems that we had with energy supply and our dependence on foreign states for it. Now we are doing more of the same with our steel. It is beyond comprehension; it is absolute madness. We are killing off our steel communities just like we did the coalmining communities back in the ’80s—I know because I was there. I saw the impact that it had, and it still has devastating consequences 40 years later. Those communities were killed off and they are still struggling. I live there and I see it day in, day out, yet we are going to get more of the same from this Government.

Look at the coal mine in Cumbria that we want to—and should—open to produce metallurgical coal that will then help in the production of steel, which we could blend and use in blast furnaces in this country. But we seem reluctant to do that. That coal mine would produce millions of tonnes of metallurgical coal and provide 500 to 600 well-paid jobs in an area that needs them, as well as more jobs in the wider community. However, we are quite prepared to import 3 million or 4 million tonnes of coal a year into this country, rather than produce it, use it in this country and hopefully export some as well. It is absolute madness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness spoke about the high electricity charges that will mean high production costs for making steel. Look at Drax power station in North Yorkshire. The electricity prices coming from there are astronomical. That is a power station that burns wood. It used to burn coal from a coal mine just a few miles down the road, but we had this great idea in this country to import wood from trees chopped down in North America. We stick them on to diesel-guzzling cargo ships, send them over the Atlantic and then set fire to them in a power station in North Yorkshire. It is absolute madness, and it will drive up the price of electricity and subsequently drive up the price of steel production. It is beyond madness.

China is getting it right; not only is it a world leader in renewables but it is making steel from blast furnaces. China is right and we should be copying its so-called steel strategy. It seems to have got it right. I agree with the five-point plan proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness but I feel that it will probably fall on deaf ears. The madness will continue. Steelworks will continue to close down and we will continue to lose jobs. We will continue to destroy communities in our great country.

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

indicated dissent.

[Lee Anderson]

Do you want to intervene, Minister?

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Anderson, I am “you”.

[Lee Anderson]

Sorry, Mrs Harris. I will wind up now because I am quite angry with the madness of this place that we work in. There are families and communities out there relying on us to save their jobs, and Members opposite sit there with glazed expressions on their faces. Come the next election, people in those communities will boot you all out.

Post Office Governance and Horizon Compensation Schemes

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. As I said earlier, 64% of people have received compensation, and we want to get that to 100% as quickly as possible. However, we want to ensure that people get the right amount and are compensated fairly, and that is why we have the process, including a point of appeal if they are unhappy with the offer.

The point the right hon. Gentleman made right at the beginning of his question is correct. The points made in the newspapers do undermine the work that we are doing. It was very disappointing to read those statements. It was also disappointing because I had done everything I could to try and keep this out of the news and do it behind closed doors, properly. I made sure when I gave public statements that I said I would not do HR in public. When I found out that it had been leaked to Sky News, I even called Sky News and asked—one of my assistants asked—for that not to be put out in the public domain before I had had a chance to speak to Henry Staunton. I did the same with the Daily Mail, which thankfully did listen. We also need the media to help us in this and not publish false allegations.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

I am absolutely staggered that the Labour party now seems to be coming out in support of the disgraced Post Office management team—the same management team that oversaw the wrongful imprisonment of postmasters across the country, with hundreds of convictions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when push comes to shove, that lot over there would take the side of the grifters, not the grafters?

[Kemi Badenoch]

As my hon. Friend says, the Post Office leadership oversaw wrongful convictions. That is one of the reasons why we have had multiple changes, and this is just the latest to ensure that we get the right leadership in place. [Interruption.] I know that some Opposition Members are dealing with this properly, but we can see from the heckling that many of them came here thinking that they could score political points, and I am not allowing that to happen.

World Down Syndrome Day

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for securing this important debate on a subject close to my heart. It is important in such debates to talk about real people. There is a real person in Ashfield called Jossie May. She is seven years old and has Down syndrome. Jossie’s family want the world to see the real Jossie. Is Jossie different? Yes, she is. She is beautiful, funny, clever, friendly, happy, and all the things that I want to be but unfortunately am not. She is a role model to us all, so I guess she is different. Jossie’s family know that she will face certain barriers when she gets older, but with the right support in place, Jossie can achieve many great things and make a fantastic contribution to our society. Why should she not be allowed to do that? She should be.

Gone are the days when we would hide away children with Down syndrome, and thank goodness for that. Why should we hide them away? They have as much right to enjoy life as we do, but it is up to us as a civilised society to ensure that we remove as many obstacles as we can. With the right education and support, young Jossie could go on to lead a happy, contented and independent life where she can work and look after herself. Is that not what we all want?

Jossie’s family are aware that we have made great strides in education over the past 30 years, but we still have a long way to go with Down syndrome. In the right settings and with the right support, whether in mainstream or special schools, surely we can do a little more to help members of our Down syndrome community. We want a world where we do not have to fight so hard for people such as Jossie. There also needs to be acknowledgment that, like any other human being, those with Down syndrome have different levels of ability. We are all different, and have different abilities. Some will be capable of living independently with some support; some will never be able to do that. We need to look at each person as an individual and ensure that they are supported by the correct decision making.

Great improvements have been made in access to education, but when a person with Down syndrome leaves full-time education, their employment opportunities are few and far between. We have a great project in Ashfield called the Rumbles cafe, where young people with learning disabilities are trained to work in a café. It is a life-changing experience for many young people, and provides a valuable service to our community, but the café faces an uncertain future, as the local council is bickering over the terms of the lease. It is truly a shocking situation.

Attitudes need to change. It should be not all about money but about outcomes. There also needs to be much more support post education. So many parents end up with a young adult who has little opportunity to integrate with their local community on a day-to-day basis. It is truly shocking. Every person deserves to be immersed in a community where they can get involved.

We need more research into health issues. There is a huge pocket of science within the Down syndrome community, such as on childhood leukaemia and Alzheimer’s, to name just two issues. Imagine what answers could be sitting there undiscovered in the Down syndrome community. It is an interesting fact that the cure rate for acute myeloid leukaemia in children with Down syndrome is higher than that of the general population. We should be looking into that more.

Lastly—this should be the simplest of all—I would like better signposting in maternity care. The Positive About Down Syndrome support service has made great strides to improve that, but there is still more to be done. I know Jossie. According to her family, she is every kind of wonderful and deserves a wealth of opportunities. Let us make a world where that can happen.

I was at the event in this place just a few days ago. I saw room full of wonderful young people, full of talent and ambition, with loving and caring families. If we cannot make the world better for those young people, we should not be here in this place. I am confident that the Minister will make sure that we do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien]

The public health grant will be announced within days, not weeks. When it is announced, the Opposition will see that, as well as generously funding public health, we will be funding an extra £900 million on drugs spending to transform treatment and an extra £300 million through the Start for Life programme. We will continue to ramp up support for public health.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to help reduce childhood obesity.

[Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to help reduce childhood obesity.

[Lee Anderson]

A top local chef in Ashfield agrees with me that cooking meals from scratch is far cheaper and more nutritious than having processed foods and ready meals. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea to start teaching children basic cooking skills in school so that they can enjoy a healthier diet as part of our fight against obesity?

[Neil O’Brien]

My hon. Friend is totally right. As well as the funding that I mentioned for healthy eating in schools, cooking and nutrition are part of the national curriculum from key stages 1 to 3, which aims to teach children how to cook and apply those principles of healthy eating, but I am sure there is more that we can do together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

I have come to the House literally from a meeting with the trade unions: I met the NHS Staff Council this morning. Once again, hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench are writing their questions before they see what is actually happening.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

T8. Sean Lynk, aged 30, in Ashfield, took his own life just before Christmas. No one saw it coming. Male suicide takes the lives of 12 young men every day in this country. It is the biggest killer of young males under the age of 40. Sean’s father Graham is coming next week to watch me speak in a Westminster Hall debate on male suicide, so could somebody from the Health team please meet Graham and me next Monday?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. We are launching a prevention of suicide strategy, and male suicide will be a particular focus, as it is a high-risk group. The debate next week will be answered by a Minister in the Department for Education, because it relates specifically to the national curriculum, but I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent.