Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

It is a huge pleasure to speak in a debate on a Bill to nationalise British Steel, reversing one of the many mistakes of the Thatcher Government in the 1980s. I will speak against new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), which would seek a private buyer for the nationalised British Steel company.

It is absolutely right that the Government are taking action to nationalise British Steel and set out a clear strategy to strengthen domestic production. While the strategy will safeguard our steelmaking capability, we must recognise the realities facing the downstream steel sector, which has been impacted by having to compete with the unfair terms of international markets and by being consistently starved of investment. Many such businesses, including those in my constituency, depend on imported grades and products that the UK simply does not produce and that are regularly used in our defence force, the automotive industry and construction.

I also oppose new clause 11, which would require the Government to create a level playing field between nationally owned and private sector businesses. While I support in principle the use of quotas and tariffs to back British Steel, we must avoid unintended consequences for the downstream industry. Sudden or poorly calibrated changes risk undermining downstream firms. These businesses are vital in constituencies such as mine, and supporting domestic production must not come at the expense of the wider steel ecosystem. I have discussed these matters extensively with the Minister on several occasions, and I look forward to welcoming him to Stourbridge in the coming weeks to meet a local steel company.

Downstream companies have expressed legitimate concerns about the present proposals. I sincerely thank the Minister for engaging with me and them on these issues, but can he confirm whether, in cases where particular steel grades are not currently produced domestically, including zero-carbon grades, the Government intend to allow exemptions from the proposed tariff and quota regime? The most recent stance is that tariffs and quotas will be reviewed in 12 months’ time, but I really fear that that will be too late for some businesses. Will he consider transitional arrangements at the very least to offer some stability to the downstream industry?

I will also speak against new clause 12, which would limit the financial assistance that can be provided under the Bill. While supporting British Steel, we cannot ignore the climate crisis. Our steel industry must be driven towards green, decarbonised production. On that point, the steel strategy states an ambition to transition to carbon-neutral steel production with electric arc furnaces when market conditions allow. It is worth noting that SSAB in my constituency, which is part-owned by the Swedish Government, imports zero-carbon steel from Sweden, where such steel—its only by-product is water—has been produced using electric arc furnaces since the 1980s.

Following the Government’s introduction of an investment debt rule in 2024, I encourage the Minister to consider what further flexibility there could be to use a similar investment method to enable the transition away from coal-based steel production. I hope that he will reflect on those points and continue to engage well with the industry. With the right decisions, I believe that we can secure a competitive, resilient and low-carbon steel sector for the future.

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

There is those three lions on my shirt, our NHS, the joy of holding a brolly over a barbie on another washed-out bank holiday Monday, that sweet smell of fish and chips on a Friday, a Mr Whippy on the beach, strawberries and cream at Wimbledon, His Majesty the King, the pageantry of trooping the colour, nil points at Eurovision, Fifa Ultimate Team, “Strictly” at Christmas, a “Gavin and Stacey” special, Monty Python, that Geri Halliwell dress, Phil Mitchell, James Bond, KSI, corgis, Larry the cat, Ant and Dec, accents, having that main character energy—and steel. Steel is to the UK what Yorkshire tea and Yorkshire puds are to God’s own county, what hotpot is to Lancashire and what black cabs are to London. It is about us. It is about what makes us and drives us. It is about pride.

Before I turn to new clauses 12 and 4 and amendments 20 and 7, which I am against, I want to begin with Martin Welch. Today marks 48 years since Martin began working at Scunthorpe steelworks, and he is now its longest-serving employee. That is 48 years of skill, graft, and loyalty to an industry that has helped to build this country. Martin has also been a champion of safety for his coworkers, standing up for people who are doing difficult, skilled and sometimes dangerous work. When we debate steel, we are debating people like Martin, families like his, and communities whose working lives, pride and futures are bound up with the future of British steel.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He has just made the point that I wanted to make, which is that we surely cannot make an ideological decision that it is always right to put national assets of sovereign capacity back into the private sector when, over generations, private industry has singularly failed to make the steel industry flourish. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Lee Pitcher]

I absolutely agree. This is not about heritage or the sentimental value of steel, although those things are of course important. Steel means something to people in their hearts, but, with a business brain, this is just about doing the right thing for the industry and for our country, our people and our communities.

Steel is part of who we are. It is in the homes we need to build, the railways we need to renew, the energy infrastructure we need to deliver and the defence capability we need to protect our country, and it is in the skilled work, pride and industrial strength of communities that have already given more than enough to Britain. This debate is not only about a steelworks; it is about whether Britain is prepared to act like a serious industrial nation again. For too long, we have been too casual about losing the things that make us strong: factories, skills, supply chains, ownership and industrial capacity. We have allowed strategic British assets to pass out of British hands and then pretended that ownership does not matter. It absolutely does.

In Dunscroft, Hatfield, Rossington, Thorne and Moorends, people know what happens when a major industry is allowed to collapse. They do not need a lecture in industrial policy; they and their families have lived through it, and their towns still live with the consequences. The loss of coalmining was not just an economic event but a social rupture. It damaged local economies because it damaged confidence. It damaged pride and the sense that the country valued the people and the places that powered it. That damage is still visible 40 years later.

When people say that the Government intervention is too bold, too risky or too ambitious, I say that they need to look at the cost of not acting. Doing nothing is not free. It has costs for jobs, skills, supply chain resilience, industrial communities and national capabilities. It leaves Britain less able to build, less able to defend itself and less able to stand on its own two feet. That is not prudence; that is managed decline, and I did not come into this place and into politics to manage decline.

This Bill says that when a foundational industry is at risk, when thousands of skilled jobs are at stake, and when national resilience is on the line, the Government do not have to stand aside and hope the market sorts it out. The market has not sorted this out. Decades of decline, under-investment and foreign ownership have brought us to this point. The choice before us is not between some perfect private sector solution and public ownership. The real choice is between responsible public action now or allowing a vital national capability to disappear. We cannot allow that.

Some of the amendments before us seem to start from the idea that Government intervention is dangerous. I disagree: the danger is delay and timidity. The danger is pretending that rigid caps, lengthy processes and automatic routes back to private sale are the same thing as responsibility. Managed risk is not recklessness; managed risk is leadership. If we keep doing the same safe things, we will keep getting the same results. Those results are the decline that people keep voting for us to change—the change that I come to this House to be part of.

This is a time to be bold and to step up. This is a time to take well-managed risks in the public interest. There are times to seize the bloody obvious and deliver for the country, and this is one of them. For the workers at Scunthorpe, for the families across my constituency who depend on those jobs, for the industrial communities that know exactly what happens when the Government walk away, and for the future strength of this country, I support this Bill. Britain needs steel, Britain needs British assets in British hands, and Britain needs a Government with the confidence to act in the national interest.

This Bill is a welcome step in the right direction. It turns the tide on 40 years of ideological self-sabotage. That is why amendments that would delay, dilute, cap arbitrarily or force a route back to failed models should be resisted. This Bill deserves the support of the Committee today.

[Pamela Nash]

It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). What a passionate speech—I hope I can do half as well as him.

At the outset, I should state that I am a long-term and proud member of Community trade union. I thoroughly welcome the Bill, which takes additional steps forward from the legislation we passed last year. I am especially happy that the Bill is UK-wide and covers Scotland, too.

I want to touch on my concerns regarding new clauses 4 and 12, which seek to limit the level of financial support that the Government can provide. Given that the provisions in the Bill are designed to be used only in emergency and necessary situations, such amendments seem unwise. Over decades, we have seen Conservative Governments let down the steel sector time and time again by failing to support and invest. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the Conservatives are seeking to bring into the Bill unnecessary and debilitating restrictions that are based on politics rather than the needs of the steel sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pamela Nash]

This legislation is designed for extraordinary situations, so we are going to have to agree to disagree on that point.

Motherwell remains the home of steel in Scotland. While the immediate and particular focus of the Bill is, understandably, on the manufacturer British Steel, I want to take the opportunity to highlight the plight of what is currently our only Scottish steelworks: the Dalzell plate mill.

The Bill suggests three potential factors that can be considered in the assessment of whether it is in the public interest to nationalise a steel company or facility. Is the plant part of the supply chain for our defence industry, thus contributing to our national security? Is it necessary for the building and/or the maintenance of parts of our national infrastructure? Does it support the local or national economy? I would argue that the Dalzell plate mill is essential to all three of those elements of our country’s progress and security, and that we would be demonstrably better off if it was supported back to full operation.

When Sanjeev Gupta took over the plant almost a decade ago, he presented a vision of a bright future for Dalzell in a “green steel” era, but that has not come to pass. Like others, the plant has suffered as a result of the onslaught of cheap imports and the global events that our wider economy has faced, but Liberty has largely been unable to provide the funds or leadership needed to make Dalzell a success during its time at the helm, with repeated failures to deliver the raw steel that is required for the plant to fulfil orders and with staff left without work. There have been regular promises of materials and work being on the way, but more often than not they have been stalled or unfulfilled.

The current situation for the team of dedicated and highly skilled staff at Dalzell is difficult to imagine. The majority of them have spent most of the last two years at home on furlough, receiving less than their full pay. A skeleton workforce of about 20 is keeping the mill ticking over, ensuring that it is clean and maintained and that necessary paperwork is completed. They want to be ready to go as soon as an order comes in.

[Lee Pitcher]

It is really sad that we have got to that point. Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole point of making bold decisions and taking a bit of risk is that it gives people aspiration for the future? It is about getting the next generation of children to set their minds on having jobs and careers in steel and manufacturing, working on the shop floor and having camaraderie. They need to envisage a future in which people have a regular, great income and support their local community and economy.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Steel is to the UK what Yorkshire tea and Yorkshire puds are to God’s own county, what the hotpot is to Lancashire and what black cabs are to London. It is to the UK what the St Leger is to Doncaster and what the hood is to Haxey. It is about us. It is about what makes us and drives us. It is about pride.

British Steel is at the heart of the UK’s industrial heritage. It was the backbone of the industrial revolution, driving global infrastructure and enabling military pre-eminence. It was key to our rail, maritime, defence and major capital infrastructure. Someone said to me this week, “There is history that has been made, but, more importantly, there is history that we can still make.” We need to make it right here, right now, with British Steel.

The future of British Steel matters not only to my neighbouring area of Scunthorpe, but to communities across north Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire and beyond, including people in my own constituency, some of whom work at Scunthorpe and all of whom are deeply affected by the fortunes of a major local industry. The steelworkers at Scunthorpe are doing work that is essential to this country. It is highly skilled, technical and sometimes dangerous work. They deserve respect for what they do, and they deserve certainty about the future of the industry that they have helped to sustain. That is why the Bill before the House is so important.

While my interest is local, the issue is absolutely national. By nationalising steel, we can ensure that the UK does not become the only G7 country incapable of producing its own primary steel, and stop reliance on foreign imports. This is not about nostalgia for the past or keeping an industry going just for sentimental reasons; it is about recognising that steel is a strategic national asset.

If Britain is to build the homes, railways, energy infrastructure and defence capability that we need, Britain needs steel. If we are serious about industrial resilience, national security and economic growth, we cannot be indifferent about whether we retain the capacity to make steel here at home. The steelworks at Scunthorpe are not just another private asset on a balance sheet; they are a vital part of our industrial base. Once that capacity is lost, it is not easily rebuilt. Once those skills are gone, they are not easily recovered.

The Government are right to bring forward legislation that gives the Secretary of State the powers needed to act where the public interest requires it.

Public ownership should never be treated lightly, but nor should it be ruled out when a vital national industry is at risk. The test here is straightforward: does Britain need steel? Yes. Does Britain need the skills and capacity represented at Scunthorpe? Yes. Would it be in the national interest to allow that capacity to disappear? No. That is why intervention is justified. For the workers at Scunthorpe, for the communities in my constituency that depend on those jobs and for the future strength and resilience of our country, the Bill deserves the support of this House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Sale of Fireworks

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree that for any issue, fireworks or otherwise, it needs to be clear to people who is responsible and who they can go to. Unfortunately, too many of our constituents, whatever their situation, get passed between different organisations, and that is unfair.

By placing some sensible regulations on noise levels and imposing a bit of predictability, it is entirely possible to allow people to enjoy fireworks as the spectacular displays that they are, while protecting people and pets from their worst effects.

I would also like to mention working animals; my constituency is partly agricultural, and we have a huge number of working and farm animals.

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

I am thankful to the more than 450 people from Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme who signed the petition. In the 100 emails I have received, there is a lot of talk about livestock in particular. This is not just about safety; it is about our farms losing animals and the impact on our trading organisations. Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Minister considers these petitions, she should consider the business case, in terms of the impact on small and medium enterprise, as well as the safety and welfare cases?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree that the impact on all groups, including businesses, must be considered.

As time moves on, I hope that more organised displays use moving drones, which are quiet and absolutely spectacular.

Rogue Builders

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mark Garnier]

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

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

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

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

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

As well as the financial cost, there is also an emotional cost. A constituent got in touch with me after trying to resolve an issue with leaking roof insulation. When we got involved, it took us eight months and 97 emails to get the builder back out to repair it. There is an emotional impact on the whole family. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is an intolerable burden to put on people, and that we need to do something more?

[Mark Garnier]

Absolutely. Not only that, but if we think about the consequences, those 97 emails could have been sent for any one of the 100,000 constituents that we each have. We should not be doing this, and there should be a mechanism to sort it out.

The important reality of all this is that there is no disincentive at all for the cowboy builder to present fictitious bills and do bad work. While the consumer must engage in a risky legal process, the rogue builder can game the system with no jeopardy whatever. As we learned from Mr Bennett's story in Merseyside and the many other people who contacted me, the police will not investigate a case with regard to fraud and rogue builders, as they deem it a civil matter.

So what is the solution? How do we protect honest builders, subcontractors, merchants and, importantly, our constituents and consumers? How do we redress the balance of risk so that it does not favour the rogue builder but gives equal weight to both consumer and builder? The builder is not always in the wrong, so the solution must be balanced. Builders may occasionally need to be protected from rogue customers. The answer must lie in a scheme of regulation and licensing. In essence, what I am seeking to do—I have had a couple of presentation Bills on this topic—is get the Government to come up with a scheme of compulsory licensing for SME building firms working in the renovation and domestic improvement space. We do not know what it will be, but we need a system in which there is an equivalence of risk on both sides. There must be something that the builder as an individual can lose if he or she is found not to be doing their job properly.

My experience in this area has been with financial services and regulatory reform. Although I am not proposing anything remotely as complex as the FCA or the PRA to regulate builders, there is more than one important carry-across from financial services regulation. The first is that we do not want regulation to be a burden on the taxpayer. A licensing scheme must be self-financed through licensing fees: the building firms must pay for it.

Rules for having a licence must be straightforward. Importantly, no firm or individual should be allowed to offer services directly to customers without a licence. That in itself would result in the wider building industry policing the market. If a builder knows that somebody else is a dodgy builder, it is in their interest to report them. Mortgage lenders would require evidence that money will be spent on a licensed firm. Architects and surveyors acting as project managers would need to see licences to engage a building firm in the first place, so consumer would know what they are getting. Consumers would be able to check the builder on the regulator’s website, in the same way that they can check their pension adviser on the FCA register. The regulator could be TrustMark, which already offers voluntary regulation. There should a code of conduct covering honesty, safety and quality of work. Failure to comply should have a series of sanctions, with the ultimate sanction of the loss of licence.

An option could be a compensation scheme. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is an example of how consumers who have lost out as a result of poor practice can be compensated for their loss from a scheme financed by levies placed on licence holders in the relevant sector. The double effect is that the consumer gets their losses covered while the industry as a whole is incentivised to keep an eye on each other. An ombudsman would be able to assess consumer loss without the need to engage expensive and lengthy legal and professional experts to defend against bogus builds or to challenge poor work. These proposals aim to end the decades-long history of consumers who have been ripped off in one way or another by shoddy rogue builders.

I am conscious of time, Ms Furniss, but I want to acknowledge that the Government have started to resolve some of these issues. A New Homes Quality Board has been set up to ensure that new homes are built to a certain standard. That is a welcome development. The fact that it has an ombudsman demonstrates that the Government and I are probably thinking along the same lines in a broad sense, but the New Homes Quality Board is targeted specifically at the new homes market. Given the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes, it will have its work cut out. Importantly, it is not designed for the RM&I sector, which remains wholly unregulated and unsupervised. That is what the Minister must concentrate on.

Many people agree that this problem in the RM&I sector is beyond redemption. The Federation of Master Builders report on this subject in 2018 said that even construction firms themselves agree that a compulsory licensing scheme is necessary. The industry wants it too: 77% of SME builders and 78% of consumers agree with the FMB’s proposed licensing scheme.

Enough is enough. I have a few more words about my engagement so far. Unfortunately, the Housing Minister is on his feet in the main Chamber talking about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I was looking forward to beating him up a bit, because he has been less than brilliantly helpful. None the less, it is very good to see the Minister from the Department for Business and Trade in her place. I look forward to hearing her helpful words about how the Government will introduce legislation to ensure our constituents are not ripped off endlessly by these wretched builders.

British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

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

For my 719 BCSSS members, with the scheme looking quite healthy now, does the Minister have that oomph to push it forward and expedite it as quickly as possible to get them justice?

[Sarah Jones]

I certainly have oomph, yes, and I am working as fast as I can on this. I will not talk now about the wider support that we are offering people in our former coalfield communities, but a whole raft of Government interventions are there to support people.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Let me bring us back to the Bill that we are here to debate. We have heard some of the data, statistics and information, and about the finances and the associated commercial considerations. We have heard about the importance of British Steel to our defence industry and our national security, about the importance of energy and resilience, and about the infrastructure we need to build to give us the growth in this country that we can feed back and inject into the public services that so need it. Of course, the big thing here is the 3,700 jobs, and today I represent the voice of my residents in the Isle of Axholme and those living in neighbouring towns, including Scunthorpe, who are feeling it today and who are listening to every single word we say. I have to say that the risk to them and the impact—the personal impact—on them are unquantifiable. That is what I want to talk about.

Yesterday, I spoke to Richard, a fifth-generation worker at Scunthorpe who has recently finished there. He said that this is about the individual, about the families, about their colleagues and friends, and about the town. This is about their identity, and he described it in this way. He said that British Steel in Scunthorpe is the “beating heart” of the area, and over the last few years that beating heart has started to slow. As it has slowed, every time it skips a beat, as it has in the last couple of weeks, people hold their breath. They are anxious, they are scared and they are frightened. With every skip of that beating heart, people lose hope, and we cannot let people lose hope. He says to us that we need to come together and we need to pick up a community defibrillator, take it there, give it the injection of pace that it needs, and make sure that we stimulate that heart for all the generations in the future.

We have the opportunity with this Bill today to take control and to start to make that happen. We can turn British Steel—making primary or virgin steel, which is vital for all the things we have talked about—into a treasure, and not just a treasure, but a national treasure, which is exactly why we need to move this on today.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I very much have a grip. We are working with officials, the Secretary of State and others all the time. In terms of the conditions that he suggests we should put on the offer of funding, the offer we made was conditional on job targets, fair terms for workers, adhering to UK law, protecting taxpayers’ money—a whole raft of conditions were set and need to be adhered to.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s haste, there was no steel strategy in the 14 years of the previous Government. We are developing one. I am not going to stand in front of taxpayers in my constituency and say, “I have spent £2.5 billion just on a whim.” We have to get this right.

We are working with industry. I was at Celsa in Cardiff this week at a roundtable of the scrap industry and the steelmakers talking about the plan. I have done roundtables with all the industries that buy steel to ensure that we understand what demand will be over the coming years. We are getting this right, which is what the taxpayer would expect of us.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) is in Scunthorpe right now, supporting our fantastic steelworkers. Many of my constituents work in Scunthorpe; I know that they will be feeling extremely anxious, and my heart goes out to them. Will the Minister confirm that she remains steely in her determination to secure the future of the UK construction and steel industries, and that she will do everything she possibly can to support my constituents who are affected?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend’s constituents who work for British Steel will, of course, be deeply worried. When I was last there in February, I talked to workers, the unions and management. This is a proud industry of good jobs with good salaries compared with the local averages. I am well aware of how anxious those workers will be feeling; I hope they can take some comfort, at least, from the fact that we are doing absolutely everything we can to secure a deal with British Steel.