Debate on the Address

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to take part in this King’s Speech debate. I join with others in congratulating the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) on the way they spoke earlier.

I want to focus in particular on the proposals to nationalise British Steel. My constituency takes in a part of the Scunthorpe steelworks site. Many hundreds of my constituents work in the industry, with many more working in the supply chain. It is worth noting that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government estimates that closure of the steelworks could equate to a loss in economic output in northern Lincolnshire of £802 million over the next five years.

As a Conservative, it is not natural for me to speak in favour of nationalisation; it is somewhat uncomfortable in many respects. However, the present situation—Jingye still owns the site, but Ministers and appointed officials manage it—is clearly not sustainable, and it is difficult to see any other alternative in the short term.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) spoke about the privatisations of the Thatcher years, and it is certainly the case that some of them need refining; certainly they need better regulating. It is worth noting, however, that for 13 years, between 1997 and 2010, the Labour party was in power and could have done something about those privatised companies. I think the big fault with the privatisation process was not the actual process initially, but what followed, with many companies now in foreign ownership and poorly regulated.

I want to comment on the EU reset that was proposed in the speech. I am an ardent Brexiteer. I am old enough to have voted to leave the EU—or the common market as it was then—in 1975, so my credentials in that respect are pretty good. I have no objection in principle to resetting our arrangements with Europe; clearly, we need to trade with Europe and we need good working relationships there. However, I would just warn Government Members that EU procurement rules and over-regulation will not be helpful to much of our industry.

If we are to remain a manufacturing nation—I share the view held by Members across the House that that should be the case—we need a domestic steel industry. As I have said in the House on previous occasions when we have discussed the steel industry, if we are going to maintain a domestic steel sector, which we must, there will be a cost to the taxpayer. Whether that is through subsidy or through nationalisation, the cost will certainly be there.

Scunthorpe thrives on the steelworks; as I have mentioned, 3,000 to 4,000 people work there, and many more work in the supply chain. Although I was born in Cleethorpes, I moved to Grimsby at the age of five, when my parents were allocated a council house, which they thought, quite rightly, was magnificent. In Grimsby, I lived through the decline of the deep-sea fishing industry, which means I am very aware of how such a decline can affect a town and its people. I subsequently went to work as the constituency agent for the current Father of the House in Gainsborough, which was in a similar situation at that time; the two big engineering companies had closed, and the inevitable downturn resulted. I do not want that to be repeated in Scunthorpe and the surrounding area.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), for contacting me on Monday and going through the proposals. I hope that when Ministers wind up these debates, they will give an assurance not only that the Government are committed to the steel industry, but that they will ensure that the blast furnaces now in Scunthorpe remain operational until electric arc furnaces are up and running.

I will move on to one or two other items. We heard from the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) that the Great British Railways Bill will transform the railway network. I suggest that transformation will cost money and that taking the private sector out of the railway industry will mean the taxpayer has to find yet more money, which may well result from Government borrowing.

The other hit that my local economy has taken recently has been the closure of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery at Killingholme, near Immingham. That, again, has led to the local economy taking a really serious hit in recent months. We have heard oil mentioned today. I urge the Government to look again at the licences for the North sea.

I would also like to talk about local government, as I see no mention in the King’s Speech of how we are going to improve local government services. I was a councillor for 26 years; I worked for 14 of those years on Grimsby borough council, which was in the two-tier system, followed by another 12 years at the North East Lincolnshire unitary authority. I support the changes to unitary authorities as a gradual process, but I suggest to the Government that local government reform as it is proceeding at the moment is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic—it is not dealing with the serious business of the services that local government provides. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) spoke earlier about basic council services—cutting grass, maintaining parks and libraries, and the like. I see no way in which this is likely to change. If we are to create a vision and make people want to be part of their local communities to a much greater extent, local authorities can play a major part in doing that, but they need resources.

I remember the days when even the lamp posts in Grimsby had the coat of arms on them. Now we have street furniture all over the place, but it is just basic grey steel. The place begins to look a mess. If we are going to tidy up our towns and improve the public realm, it is vital that local authorities have resources, but I do not see the Government looking seriously at ways to improve that.