Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Richard Tice Excerpts

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

I absolutely support the Government’s commitment to electric arc as the future of steelmaking, but I would be interested to hear more from the Minister. In this regard and so many others, the key priority in decarbonising our industries is to bring down the cost of electricity. This Government already took an important step in the last Budget, but we must go further if we are to see the sort of expansion in steelmaking that we need.

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

The hon. Gentleman talks about the opportunities from an electric arc furnace, but does he recognise the vital importance of keeping blast furnace primary steelmaking capability, which can only take place in Scunthorpe?

[Mr Perkins]

Yes, I do. I should say to the hon. Gentleman that I had the opportunity last night to predict that he would be the leader of Reform by the time we went into the general election, and I stand by that. We would normally expect to see a party leader in the House of Commons. We never see the Reform leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), in the House of Commons, which is why I predicted that it would be the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice)—but I am getting distracted and will return to his question.

I am absolutely committed to doing everything we can to decarbonise, but in certain sectors doing so would be to deindustrialise. There is no sense in allowing blast furnaces only for imported products and not looking after that ourselves. I welcome the Government’s drive and direction, but I absolutely want to see that future for Scunthorpe. We should look at ways that we can use greener gases rather than pursue anything against that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be conflating two issues. Last year, when the emergency legislation was introduced and Parliament was recalled on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war, we did not stand in its way, but what we are asking for in the new clause is for Parliament to be kept informed. Let us agree that we all want to be kept informed about how the discussions are going and to find out what the Government are thinking about their exit plan. I made the point yesterday about the public interest test that it is very unclear whether, once the Secretary of State determines that it is in the public interest for this particular site to be owned by the taxpayer, there will ever be the potential for it to change to different state.

[Richard Tice]

The shadow Minister seems to be implying that, essentially, the business should be up for sale at any moment, almost at any price. It is incredibly destabilising for any business and its employees to suffer that uncertainty. What is required is a period of stability and investment, with a strong vision. She previously made comments about relying on auditors at the National Audit Office to make a strategic judgment about what is in the sovereign national interest. With the greatest of respect to auditors, it is experienced businesspeople—including the Minister—who understand the industry and who can make a much stronger judgment about what is required to retain primary steelmaking in this country, with that sovereign capability, than a bunch of auditors.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I actually think the hon. Gentleman is also agreeing with me on this point. I yield to no one in my admiration for the Minister and his expertise in this industry, but I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he too thinks that it will take business nous and investment into this business to bring it back to a state where it is making money. I also heard him say that he would therefore not object to hearing a report to Parliament every six months about the progress being made, so I look forward to him supporting this amendment in the Lobby later. We want our Ministers to actively work towards returning the business to private ownership, so we want to hear in Parliament about that ongoing progress and to be able to hold Ministers accountable and ask them questions on exactly that from time to time.

New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament every six months on the impact that nationalising steel undertakings has had on inward investment into the UK. I mentioned earlier that the Government’s own impact assessment worries about the potential for a “chilling effect” where Government are taking assets into public ownership in the way that this Bill allows. During its history, the UK has very much relied on being seen as a stable and predictable environment for inward investment. Expropriating and nationalising private businesses sets a precedent that could deter future investors, not just in the steel sector but across the wider economy. The new clause would ensure that Parliament received a regular, transparent analysis of how these interventions were affecting investor confidence and capital flows into the UK economy. We all hope that they would not be adversely affected, but we would want Parliament to know, and this new clause would ensure that any damage to our reputation was identified, understood and addressed early.

New clause 11 would prevent the Secretary of State from using the powers in the Bill to grant any selective advantages through state resources that could distort competition. It would ensure that nationalised steel undertakings were not unfairly advantaged over privately owned ones. Without this safeguard, there is a real risk that nationalised entities could receive preferential treatment, whether through subsidies, contracts or regulatory advantage, undermining fair competition within the domestic steel sector. If private firms believe they will be placed at a disadvantage compared with state-owned competitors, that risks deterring further investment in UK steel and related supply chains.

To conclude, these amendments are about bringing discipline, transparency and balance to a Bill that, as drafted, risks being too broad, too costly and too unconstrained. They would ensure that any intervention was properly assessed, carefully limited and consistently scrutinised, while protecting taxpayers, competition and investor confidence. If the Government are serious about supporting the steel industry, they should also be serious about accountability, value for money and a credible long-term plan, and these amendments are designed to deliver exactly that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pamela Nash]

When it comes to Dalzell, the SNP Government have not been helpful. They previously stepped in when the steelworks went into administration, and then they sold it to the current owner, who has been less than helpful.

[Richard Tice]

The hon. Lady is making a very powerful case for the importance of the heavy plate mill in her constituency, and of having the right owners of critical steelmaking capability and the functions around it. What we have seen with the failed ownership of Jingye, and with the failed ownership and fibs of companies such as Liberty, is that if we rely on an unaligned basis, without any care for the strategic importance of steelmaking, we end up in the pickle that we are in. That is why I think the hon. Lady makes a powerful case for the importance of the plate mill in the UK’s overall steel strategy going forward.

[Pamela Nash]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful intervention.

For the reasons I have set out, we are getting to the point where we are losing experienced staff and equipment is in danger of going out of date. Time is running out very quickly for Dalzell. If it is left to close up shop, we will not be able simply to go back later and restart it. I have no intention of being the Member of Parliament who sees the closure of the last steelworks in Scotland, and I know the Minister has no intention of allowing that to happen on his watch.

Steel is Motherwell’s heritage and is also a key part of its progress. It is our threads in the fabric of the future of our country. I want my constituents once again to look at planes, wind turbines and bridges and be excited to know that the steel encasing them came from Motherwell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I think it has been clear throughout these two days of debate that none of us in the House underestimates the importance of the steel industry to our national economy, to our industrial resilience, and to the communities whose livelihoods depend on it. We can all agree that steel matters, and that steel jobs matter. However, we also believe that the responsible stewardship of taxpayers’ money matters, and despite the eloquent way in which the Secretary of State expressed his views on the Bill, we see it much more as a chaotic and unplanned intervention. It is not the product of a clear steel industrial strategy, but the product of a failure to negotiate a better outcome. The negotiated outcome was a possibility; the Secretary of State even went to China to try to achieve it.

It is the failure to address the root causes of the industry’s difficulties that has brought us to where we are today. The Bill could also be described as the steel industry blank cheque Bill, because it fails to protect the public purse from potentially vast and open-ended liabilities. Nationalisation does not solve the underlying issue that is making domestic steel production unprofitable. The higher employment costs, higher energy costs, planning issues, carbon pricing, regulation and levies associated with the Government’s net zero policies continue to weigh heavily on the sector, and the Bill does nothing to resolve those pressures. Instead, it transfers them wholesale on to the taxpayer.

We should reflect on how we came to this point. Not long ago, the Government told the House that they did not want to nationalise British Steel—indeed, that was presented as a last resort to be avoided—and yet here we are, because the Government have failed to negotiate an alternative. We see once again that when this Government negotiate, it is the taxpayer who picks up the bill. Since the intervention began last year, on that historic Saturday, the cost has already run to more than £1.3 million every single day. That is a bill for the taxpayer that will only become larger with this legislation. The Bill exposes the public finances to further liabilities—contingent liabilities, not only substantial but, alarmingly, potentially unlimited in terms of both their scale and their duration. This is a Government getting a blank cheque forever.

[Richard Tice]

The root cause of why we have the Bill is that the previous Conservative Government sold this business to Jingye in 2019. Another root cause is net zero, which was introduced by the Conservative Government. Surely what the Conservative party should do is show some humility about why we are here and support the Bill.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

Surely what the hon. Member should do is welcome the fact that our party is under new and outstanding leadership. We believe that politicians should not be in the business of running commercial enterprises, but I can see that that is the political position of the Reform party. The risks of inefficiency, political interference and poor capital allocation are very well known.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Richard Tice Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

If I may, I would also like to speak to the other amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and, before I do that, approach the Bill with the serious concern it deserves. Today’s amendments reflect some of the points the Opposition made on Second Reading: that the Bill is a chaotic, unplanned intervention that risks landing taxpayers with an open-ended and potentially unlimited bill. Without addressing those issues as we make this legislation, we need to really focus on the things that are currently making the domestic production of steel unprofitable, such as higher employment costs and policies in pursuit of net zero, such as carbon taxes and associated regulations and levies.

Before I turn to the amendments in detail, I put on record how much I respect the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), and his real-life expertise in the steel business. He is truly a rare example on the Government Benches of someone who has deep private-sector experience and really knows his subject—I salute that. My own private-sector expertise is as an investor, so most of the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends are trying to protect the taxpayer from some of the financial risks the Bill lands them with.

The fact is that nobody wanted to nationalise British Steel. The Government told us last year, when they brought in emergency legislation—and brought Members back on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war—that they did not want to nationalise British Steel. They may now claim to their Back Benchers and union backers that this is something to celebrate as true socialism, but the reality is that it is an outcome that the Government wanted to avoid.

The Government failed to negotiate a good outcome with the Chinese owners of British Steel. The Prime Minister and the Business Secretary went all the way to China and failed to get a deal. Whenever this Government negotiate, the taxpayer loses out. The Conservatives do not think that the Government should nationalise British Steel, because we do not think politicians should be running businesses. Since the Government intervened last year, it has cost taxpayers over £1.3 million every day.

The Bill is deeply flawed, and it is in a spirit of goodwill that I offer the Government the chance to adopt the Opposition’s amendments. I am sure that they will want to agree to them, as they are all sensible.

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

To correct the record, I have been calling for British Steel to be nationalised for seven years. I urged the previous Conservative Government not to sell British Steel to the Chinese, and if they had followed my excellent advice, we would not be in the pickle we are now in.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman has got his point on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

In clause 3, the Secretary of State purports to limit his powers by use of a sunset clause. The problem is, he also proposes to allow himself to reset the sunset, and to do so indefinitely, under subsection (3). I am afraid that makes a mockery of the concept of a sunset clause.

[Richard Tice]

The very reason that the Government need the ability to extend the sunset clause is that if they listened to the amendments from the Conservative party, the delays from various items would be so great that they could go beyond the two years. Of course the Government need the ability to extend the sunset clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I want to start off by saying that I find it absolutely incredible when people turn around and say that our Government should not be intervening and running services, when they are happy to allow other countries’ Governments to run our services and utilities. To be honest, I get a bit tired of it, because it is essential that we do this if we are going to save industries, save sectors and save jobs. That is why we are right in doing this.

I want to speak on amendment 21, new clause 8 and new clause 5. It was a privilege to be recalled here on a Saturday last year to pass the emergency Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 to save the Scunthorpe works, and I am just as happy to be here today to see this Bill go through its first day of Committee. Since last year, it has become clear that public ownership is in the national interest. Corby is a town built on steel—steel that built this country. At one time, the Corby steelworks was the largest combined steelworks in Europe. I recognise that the Bill does not nationalise the steelworks in Corby, but it will make sure that the sector does well, and where that happens, that will ensure that the other aspects of steel do well.

In 1967, it was the Labour party that nationalised the steelworks and put British Steel in charge. It did so because it knew that home-made steel was essential for our national security, for our economy and for thousands of jobs. In 1980, a Government who failed to see those opportunities closed the steelworks, and with that, tens of thousands of jobs went and almost a third of people in my constituency became unemployed. That is why it is so important that British Steel should be allowed to continue.

This Bill marks a reversal in direction. It shows what can happen when we have a vision for our economy and the dedication to see that vision through. How could the last Government shape our economy and create jobs when they failed to even create an industrial strategy? This Government have a strategy. Their decade-long industrial strategy, and the steel strategy announced in March, show that.

The steel strategy provides £2.5 billion through the National Wealth Fund to help rebuild our steel sector so that we can move towards 50% of all British demand for steel being made in this country, ensuring our security in an unstable world with the capacity for our own virgin steel supply. That is what this Bill leads to, and that is what is going to happen as a result of it.

British steelworking powered the first industrial revolution, and it can do so again, building the renewables and technology for the future. We still have a steelworks in Corby, and we want to make sure that Corby and the towns like it across our country have a new and secure future. I believe that the passing of this Bill will ensure that that happens.

[Richard Tice]

It is a pleasure to stand up and support the Government and this Bill, because we all know that the ability to make primary steel is absolutely in the public interest, and it therefore automatically meets the public interest test. We cannot be the only G7 nation without the ability to make primary steel using a blast furnace, but that will be the consequence if this legislation does not go ahead.

The Conservatives’ line of thinking is to just rely on the private sector. Well, they tried that for some 14 years, but the reality is that the state of the blast furnaces means that they need investment for relining, renewing and rebuilding. The private sector has said that it is not there yet, but it could be, so we need a period of time when the industry has the commitment of the public sector to ensure that a thriving primary steelmaking capability can exist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. He has referred several times to the series of proposals being made in Committee by the Conservative party, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin). They come to this: that no Government should be able to create for themselves a very wide definition of what a steel undertaking should be, that they should not be able to define for themselves without restriction what the public interest may be, and that they should not be able to extend indefinitely, without parliamentary authority, the effect of the Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he objects to in those proposals?

[Richard Tice]

I will indeed. My objection is that the consequence of the Conservative party’s amendments would be to delay the investment that is required to get on with this. People have expressed concern about the current losses. The last thing we should do is create bureaucratic delays that prevent the investment that would turn the cash flow around from negative to positive.

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

I have already made clear to my constituents that I do not oppose the Bill, but I support the Opposition Front Benchers in trying to constrain its cost. Will the hon. Gentleman give a specific figure, or is the Reform policy just to spend, spend, spend?

[Richard Tice]

Actually, the consequence of the Conservative party’s amendments would be to delay the vision and investment that is required, and therefore to increase the losses. That is why they should be ignored. If you are going to do a job, then for heaven’s sake, do it properly and get on with it. That is the difference here.

We need the blast furnaces to be refurbished and relined, and we need a plate mill. We need proper, committed investment. We need the Minister to have a pro-British steel procurement strategy at all levels of the public sector, from warships and the railways to even the planning conditions for a new Chinese embassy—let’s make it with British steel from Lincolnshire, not cheap Chinese steel from far away.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am trying to understand how constraining Government powers in the three areas of concern would in any way lead to a delay. I do not think that any constraints imposed would stand in the way of this undertaking. In what way would there be a delay? I may not have sufficiently understood the linkage between such constraints on Government powers in other undertakings and how on earth those would impact this particular one.

[Richard Tice]

It is my judgment that the Conservative party’s amendment would prevent the Government from getting on and setting out the vision, placing the investment that is required, and giving the confidence to everybody that there will be a steel-making capability for primary steel. Once we get that investment in the core asset in Scunthorpe—with a refurbished, renewed blast furnace that is ready for the next 50 years—then, with brilliant management from the private sector, we will start to attract private sector capital, which we all want to bring in. This is a moment that requires the proper seed investment, the commitment and the courage from this Government to get on with it, which was so lacking in the previous Administration.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I agree with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman says. We can surely agree on this point: what is really killing Scunthorpe are the insane green energy policies and the fact that we have the highest energy costs in Europe. If we had a sane energy policy, we could start to make a profit at Scunthorpe.

[Richard Tice]

The Father of the House is absolutely spot on. The net-stupid-zero policies have been catastrophic across the piece, and I fear that those very policies are the reason why people are concerned about the possibility of opening an electric arc furnace. That puts even greater pressure on the need to have a renewed, brilliant, wonderful blast furnace capability for the next 50 years. If we achieve those things, we can bring in private sector capability with a pro-British procurement strategy. That will give confidence to all.

It has been mentioned that the Bill would somehow prevent other investment from the private sector. The discussions that I have had with overseas pension funds and overseas sovereign wealth funds suggest exactly the opposite. They suggest that, with this sense of commitment—what I like to call a joint venture with the core asset, under public ownership—we will attract more international investment, because people will know that there is a long-term commitment as opposed to the wibbly-wobbly, flip-flop approach of previous regimes. That is the reason that we need to get on with this. We need to ignore any delaying amendments.

Let us have the vision. New clause 5 would require the Government within three months to set out that 10-year vision and 10-year commitment to the blast furnaces and others in the steel undertaking, to ensure that we have a vibrant and, ultimately, viable primary steel-making capability in the United Kingdom.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill and comment on a number of the amendments. I do so as a Member of this House who represents a proud manufacturing constituency, which includes a number of industries that rely on steel in a variety of ways, from the rail industry and advanced manufacturing to the cluster of innovative defence and space-related companies at NETPark—North East Technology Park—in Sedgefield. Steel is not only used by some of those companies, but extensively used in their supply chain. It underpins manufacturing not just in my seat, but across the north-east and many other constituencies in the country, as we have heard. I have also campaigned successfully to protect sovereign supply of key materials in my constituency and the wider economy. Given the importance of steel to our national security and national critical infrastructure, it is crucial that we get our approach to steel right.

So what does this mean? First, as hon. Members across the House have said, we need to ensure that the Government can act quickly and with agility. That is why I have concerns about several amendments, which, as other colleagues have raised, could slow down the Government’s ability to act decisively. That appears in a number of amendments but, for example, amendments 2, 3, 18 and 19 and new clause 2 seek to impose additional requirements on Ministers before they can act using the provisions of the Bill. Others have gone into some of the specifics, but my concern is that when considered in the round, these proposed changes would have the cumulative effect of hampering the Government’s ability to act and to act swiftly. It is critical that Ministers can act because that is the key purpose of the Bill; that is why we are here debating it today.

Why is it important that Ministers can act quickly, and why might some of the amendments be a challenge? Because, as we are discussing, when a steel plant faces significant challenges and the Government are minded to intervene, Ministers need to achieve three things. First, they need to be able to provide certainty about the future of the business, which helps sustain the workforce and gives certainty to its supply chain and reassurance to its contractors. We have heard Members talk from their private sector experience—I myself worked in regeneration and housing previously—that when there is doubt about the future of an industry or a particular business, or there is a particular commercial concern, we know that when business confidence starts to fall, if action is not taken quickly, the lack of confidence in the supply chain and the contractor chain can do serious damage.

The second priority for Ministers must be to minimise risk. We know not just in this process, but in other similar processes undertaken by the public and commercial sectors that the longer the process, the higher the commercial and legal risk and the more likely it is that we will not get the outcome we desire. It was that desire to act swiftly and show significant national leadership that, as hon. Members mentioned, is why we were all recalled last year on a Saturday, to intervene quickly in the steel sector.

Thirdly, and crucially, the reason that speed is important is if this is agreed, it is important that Ministers have the powers they need to enact the will of Parliament quickly. Quicker intervention in circumstances like this, given the factors we have discussed, is likely to be more successful, particularly in complex cases as we see at British Steel in Scunthorpe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that question, because it was mentioned by a number of Members during the debate. To go back to the point about having a business environment that creates a profitable and investable steel industry, energy is clearly part of that. Some of the changes that the Government have already made—increasing the rebate on the supercharger from 60% to 90%, or the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will support some of the downstream industry—will be particularly helpful in supporting not only the steel industry but other parts of heavy industry between now and 2030, which is when the Government’s clean power mission will come fully online. We anticipate that at that point, we will have not only clean energy, but secure and lower-cost energy.

If we consider the timescale of some of the investments in steel companies that we are talking about—not only multiple-year investments in order to commission, but multiple-decade investments beyond that—we can see that we have a pathway on energy that will enable us to get from now to 2030 and beyond. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is not currently in his place, was concerned about this issue as well. He was also concerned that the UK has the highest energy prices in Europe, but we do not currently, and it is certainly our plan to ensure that our energy prices for industry are competitive with Europe in future.

Returning to the amendments that have been tabled, there was quite a lot of discussion about the sunset clause in the Bill. There were a number of objections to it, but the case for its continuation was made extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). As it stands today, the Government have no intention of extending the sunset period, but we recognise that we are living through particularly volatile times. There is geopolitical and economic uncertainty, which is likely to have a bearing on the steel sector in ways that it is difficult for us to see at the moment. As such, our view is that it is simply pragmatic to include this level of flexibility in the Bill, and of course, regulations made under that clause would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

It is important that I address some of the concerns of the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies), who spoke with great passion and commitment about the importance of the steel industry throughout the whole of Wales. There is often considerable discussion of Port Talbot in this House, but as she rightly set out, there are also steelworks in Llanwern, Cardiff, Newport, Trostre and Shotton—I hope I have remembered all of them—that deserve recognition and investment.

I could not disagree more, however, that this Government have treated the Welsh steel industry unfairly, or not in an equitable way, compared with the steel industry elsewhere in the UK. The steel industry in Wales is the only part of the industry that has a ringfenced fund—£500 million for Port Talbot. The hon. Lady said that that has been spent with no benefit to the local community, but I frankly cannot agree with that. That £500 million has enabled Port Talbot to invest an additional £500 million in a transformation of that steelworks that will secure steel production at that site and the future of the south Wales steel industry for decades to come. It is a significant investment in the local community.

I know that the hon. Lady, like me, would have preferred for that transition in south Wales to have happened without the hard stop between the closure of the blast furnaces and the restart of the electric arc furnace, and I support Tata Steel’s view on the installation of its electric arc furnace. However, the decision to close was taken before the general election, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—the former Secretary of State, who is now Chief Whip—was able to intervene at that point and get a much better deal for the workers at Port Talbot and the community there than the previous Government did. I share the hon. Lady’s frustration and concern, but we need to be clear about where the indifference to the blast furnace closures in Port Talbot was. It was not with this Government; it was with the then Conservative Government.

[Richard Tice]

As we are talking about the new electric arc furnace in Port Talbot, can the Minister guarantee with certainty his confidence that, when built, it will open?

[Chris McDonald]

I am really glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question—I know he has great experience in the property industry, and certainly with construction projects. As I mentioned earlier in the debate and as he will know very well, in any construction project you only really have certainty on the timeline when you have got out of the ground, and this project is still very much in the ground.

The hon. Gentleman’s question gives me the opportunity to clear up some issues. I know that the delay as reported by Tata Steel—this is Tata Steel’s project, not the Government’s—related to an electrical connection, and specifically the soil condition as it relates to building a substation. At the outset, quite rightly, assumptions were made about the soil condition based on engineering assessments. Right hon. and hon. Members must be aware, though, that there have been steelmaking activities on that site in Port Talbot for well over 100 years. Not all of those operations had been fully documented, and the ground conditions were considerably worse than had been anticipated. That is now being dealt with, and as soon as the project gets out of the ground, we will have great certainty about when the electric arc furnace can turn on. Until that happens, as a project manager, I would hesitate to give a cast-iron guarantee, because you need to get out of the ground first.

What I am looking forward to, though, is the delivery of the electric arc furnace in Port Talbot, because that is the point when the project will feel real—when the workforce will be able to see the furnace itself. I have been around the shop and seen the space that has been created for the installation of the furnace, but once it arrives on the dock of Port Talbot, we will all feel a greater degree of certainty about that. That will be a big boost to the workforce when it does happen. I am absolutely confident that it will happen, but to say when—to pin it down to an individual week or month—is more difficult.

There was one more point I wanted to make about the contribution of the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin. She essentially called for public ownership of Port Talbot, and I am really sorry, but that is another point on which we disagree.

The Government’s view is that where a steel undertaking is running adequately under private ownership, that ultimately should be allowed to continue, because the Government believe in private involvement in the steel sector. It goes back to the point about investment that I think the shadow Minister made earlier. She described her concern about a potential chilling effect on investment.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Richard Tice Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

That was a waste of an intervention. If the hon. Member lets me continue, I will explain exactly what the Conservative plan is for British Steel, and it is a better plan and a more sustainable plan than we have heard from the Secretary of State today. This Government did not inherit—

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

As the shadow Minister was unable to respond to the previous intervention, would he like to explain why the Conservative Government sold British Steel to the Chinese in 2019 against my specific advice?

[Andrew Griffith]

When it suits the hon. Gentleman, he claims to be a fan of the late Margaret Thatcher, but he seems to have forgotten that most of her time in office was spent untangling the mess of Labour’s past nationalisations. Unlike him, she did not bend with the wind or find herself in the same Lobby as a Government who have hiked taxes to record highs, driven wealth offshore and drowned business in red tape.

Members would like to know what our plan is, and our plan is to address the cause, not the symptoms. [Interruption.] Labour Members would do well to listen to this, and we might have more of a steel industry left if they do. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel without an energy policy for industry. Britain has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, and every choice the Government are making has pushed those prices further up. This week, they voted against new licences in the North sea, choosing to import from Norway gas that could be drilled here, at a cost of 200,000 jobs and £12 billion in tax revenue.

The Secretary of State knows this and his Back Benchers know this, but the Prime Minister is too weak to stand up to his windmill-fetishist Energy Secretary. We have offered an alternative. Our cheap plan would slash energy prices and improve energy security. Why would the Government not want that? If they were genuinely interested in securing the future of steelmaking, as well as those of many other industries, they could have come here today and adopted that plan. Instead, this Bill is an indictment—

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is exactly seven years since I started calling for British Steel at Scunthorpe to be taken into public ownership. The Conservatives rejected my splendid advice, and the chaos we have seen is a result of that. In opposing this Bill, they show that they do not care about the sovereign nature and importance of steelmaking, they do not care about the thousands of highly-skilled jobs, and they do not care about the communities and families around them—they have no understanding of its importance.

I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister for Industry on bringing forward this Bill—the first from the King’s Speech to be debated on Second Reading. I told the Secretary of State’s predecessor that he should show some cojones and get on with it, and I think that is what we are now seeing. Alongside this support from the Secretary of State, we now need to see the vision and the plan for the long term. I am concerned that there is an attitude of, “We’ll quietly let the blast furnaces go cold and disappear, and then replace them with electric arc furnaces.” We need a big, bold vision to renew, reline and rebuild at least one blast furnace.

Around the world, 50% of all new steelmaking capacity in the last five years has come from blast furnaces. It is the strongest, most robust primary steel. I know that the Minister of State is a great fan of direct reduced iron, and he has a point there; nevertheless, we should not expose ourselves by putting all our bets on electric arc furnaces, when we know that the price of electricity is at a crisis high. We need diversity in this, rather like when my late grandmother would look at the desserts available for Sunday lunch and say, “Grandson, have a little bit of each.” When it comes to steelmaking, let us have a little bit of each. Let us have a bit of primary steel and a little bit of electric arc furnace steel, to ensure that we always retain those skills and recognise the importance of our sovereign steelmaking capability.

I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will produce that vision and plan over the coming weeks, so that we can have confidence in those jobs and so that the communities can have confidence that steelmaking will be retained and invested in for the long term.

British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate intervention. I understand the pressing needs and am fully aware of the issues facing Denby, which is partly, I believe, in his constituency. I have been in touch with the regional mayor about it numerous times since that situation unfolded. I certainly wish the workforce well and hope that the interventions and the partnership that the Government have been providing alongside the regional mayor will mean that a buyer can be found, which I am convinced is perfectly possible. When it comes to the long-term regeneration of the Potteries and the ceramics industry, as I have said already, I am willing to meet the industry itself to listen to and learn from their insight and the challenges they face, but also the opportunities they have as we rebuild our economy after the damage caused by the previous Administration and ensure that we get growth back into our economy.

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

Is that it, Secretary of State? It has taken five months for the Secretary of State to come up with an energy price scheme which he has admitted here in the House today only supports 10,000 businesses. He seems to forget that there are millions of small businesses up and down the country—restaurants, fish and chip shops, pubs, ceramics or farmers. When will the Secretary of State admit that the reality is the reason this country’s economy has no growth is because of high energy prices? When will the Secretary of State do the right thing and scrap net zero so we can bring our electricity prices down?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the shadowy Business Minister for his greatest hits performance for the House today. He says that supporting 10,000 businesses is nothing. I can tell him that it means a hell of a lot for those businesses getting that support, because it will mean a 25% reduction in their energy costs. It is being paid for, of course, by reducing some of the tariff charges and by some of the other Government schemes that offer relief. It is also paid for partly by the Exchequer, which is funded by people who pay their taxes.

UK Steel Strategy

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend has been speaking about this issue for a long time. In the run-up to the transition period for electric arc furnaces, I assure her that we have a scrap working group, which is working to identify the sources of scrap metal that will be required. Just yesterday in Port Talbot, I was talking with the management, the workers and the unions, and I saw the infrastructure being built to get scrap from across the United Kingdom to where it needs to be on an enormous scale.

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

Well, at least this Government have a steel strategy, unlike the previous Administration. Credit where credit is due: they are right to impose tariffs and quotas. But that is as far as it goes, because otherwise it is visionless and hamstrung by net stupid zero. We have the absurd situation in which the public sector is buying tens of thousands of tonnes of steel from China, rather than from Scunthorpe and British Steel. This is a complete betrayal of thousands of workers in Scunthorpe. There is no vision. Will the Secretary of State confirm when the blast furnaces will be closed at Scunthorpe—Reform would renew and replace them—and will he guarantee that when the electric arc furnace in Port Talbot is built, it will definitely open for business?

Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 General Committees

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

This is quite extraordinary. We have debates in the House of Commons every week where everybody bemoans the price of electricity, yet we have here an order that will increase bills on businesses significantly. When we reduce the annual allowance for those industries, we are increasing their bills. We have debates about businesses shutting down and having to be propped up by the Government in order to protect communities and jobs. And why are they shutting down? Because of the energy cost—all of them, without exception. This order, and this emissions trading scheme, is driving up bills, and is the sole reason why industries are leaving the country and going overseas.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Richard Tice]

I would be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I hope will clarify whether he has spoken to any of these industries, and the communities who are having their jobs slaughtered because of this lunacy.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

I am sure the hon. Member, as somebody with a great degree of business experience, understands the global trading environment that we sit in, and the energy shocks that come from events like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I thank him for his note on talking with businesses in my constituency. I spend a lot of time talking with businesses in my constituency; I do not know whether Reform UK does the same. Would he like to clarify that?

[Richard Tice]

The reason so many industrial businesses are shutting down, whether it is at Mossmorran, Grangemouth, Immingham or elsewhere, or in the automotive sector, is because of the high cost of electricity. This emissions trading scheme, and the linkage of it to the EU emissions trading scheme, has driven up the carbon taxes, which of course has therefore driven up bills and costs. Therefore, industries are less competitive and, as was previously said, those businesses have to pass the cost on to the consumer.

What this is doing is making our industry and businesses less competitive, and the tragedy of that is that we are therefore destroying growth and jobs. All we are doing is sending these industries overseas, and then the carbon dioxide is produced over there, we have lost the jobs, we have lost the money, and we have become poorer. For that reason, I will vote against the order.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I want to make a couple of quick remarks, partly in relation to the ceramics industry—I am a one-trick pony at these events.

The sector is very grateful that it is not included in CBAM, for some of the reasons that have already been discussed. The current arrangements in the sector are quite challenging. I know the Minister is acutely aware of that, and has been a steadfast ally in some of our work to seek long-term support for a sector that is very difficult to decarbonise—it is incredibly difficult to improve on the technology because of the way in which it is set up—but is also producing things that are integral to the Government’s missions, whether that be house bricks for our house building programme or advanced ceramics to support our defence industry, our growing exports, our pharmaceuticals or the factories that we need, because we cannot make steel in this country without ceramics.

Let me put a couple of questions to the Minister. The first is on the allocation of free allowances. I recognise that CBAM will reduce the free allowance allocations that are put to those sectors that will be a part of it. Would it be possible to consider a reallocation of those free allowances to a sector that is not in CBAM and does not necessarily want to be, but for which the decarbonisation programme is most difficult—namely, the ceramics sector? We are still at huge risk of carbon leakage. We work in an unfair market at the moment, not least because of the way in which non-market economy status countries import into this country. The Trade Remedies Authority, which was set up by the previous Government, does not necessarily have the teeth to levy the import tariffs necessary to create a level playing field for consumers.

Secondly, where does the Minister see the cap going in future years? I am aware that a consultation was started by, I believe, the right hon. Member for East Surrey when she was the Secretary of State in the last Government, on how we could incentivise decarbonisation through raising taxation on the most polluting sectors. The Minister will be aware that the ceramics sector is desperately trying to do all that it can to reduce its output of greenhouse gases, but that is really difficult when it has to run a kiln at several hundred degrees for many hours to do the bisque and the glaze firing, and run refractories for 12 to 14 hours at 1,500°C.

Electrification is not available to many of those businesses at the moment, because the capital to invest in those sorts of kilns is simply not available; the profit margins on their products do not allow for it. Hydrogen is not a technology that is yet proven to be viable because of the chemistry that necessarily takes place inside a kiln. We are wedded to gas for the foreseeable future, and therefore wedded to being one of the country’s last remaining polluting industries. What the sector fears is that, as we move at pace to meet some of the decarbonisation agendas and reduce the overall cap through the emissions trading scheme, that will mean that the free allowances also have to come down, which will push the ceramics sector into having to buy many more free allowances. That cost will then simply be passed on to consumers, or—

[Richard Tice]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gareth Snell]

I will not, I am afraid. That will not then allow the sector to put in the investment needed to bring down the factories’ outputs through new technology. When the Minister sums up, will he address those two points? The sector—I think I am meeting them later today—will be glad to hear him do so.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the ceramics sector, but his comments could read across to other energy-intensive sectors. I said that once quality costs have been taken into account, UK gas prices are competitive with the rest of Europe, but in the sector that he mentions, many of those imports come from Turkey. In some other sectors in the chemicals industry, the issue is about over-capacity, over-supply and the dumping of products in the UK that have been produced in the far east—there are quite a number of issues, and I continue to work on all of them across the heavy industry sector to ensure that we can improve the business environment as a whole.

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

Another week, hundreds more jobs slaughtered on the altar of net stupid zero. It is leading to high energy costs, high policy costs and high taxes, and making this business—along with so many others—completely unviable. How many hundreds of thousands of other industrial workers are terrified that they are next? Can the Minister confirm to this House whether any discussions have been had with ExxonMobil, or whether any indications or concerns have raised by that company, about any other plants, businesses or refineries in the United Kingdom?

[Chris McDonald]

I know that the hon. Member takes a keen interest in the carbon prices for industry, and it is worth looking at the particular situation of this plant, as it exports all of its products to the EU. It receives a carbon allowance for its emissions that is slightly higher than 50%, and the reason why it does not receive a higher level of allowance is that it reflects the inefficiency of the plant. Fundamentally, the free allowances are set against a benchmark—a plant that receives 50% is one that is inefficient.

As I know the hon. Member will appreciate, given his business background, the intention behind that policy is to incentivise the owner of the plant to invest in order to reduce their carbon emissions, and then they would be able to sell the carbon credits on the open market and generate further profit for the plant. That has worked very effectively in the advanced manufacturing sector. For whatever reason, the owner of this plant chose not to invest, and it has suffered the carbon penalty as a result. The community of Fife has suffered as a result of its decision as well, and we are now in a position where a $1 billion investment cannot be sustained.

As I mentioned earlier, this company is exporting its products. It would be very difficult for it to find any way to exempt itself from carbon policies, because of course the EU has a carbon mechanism too, and that is the market into which it sells. Fundamentally, that carbon cost has to be paid, either here in the UK or to the EU. I am sure that as a good supporter of the UK and of Britain, as opposed to the EU, the hon. Member would prefer that His Majesty’s Treasury receive any taxation income, rather than sending that money to the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and wish him well in his endeavours. Anybody in this place would be churlish not to wish him well in his endeavours to try to do better—

[Richard Tice]

Are you sure?

[Jim Shannon]

Expect there might be one or two to my left-hand side, but that is by the way.

It is sad to hear of yet another large UK company closure next year, this time in Mossmorran. I have seen and experienced similar stories in Northern Ireland, and what springs to mind is always the impact that this will have on the workers. Alongside the Scottish Government, can the Minister provide an assurance that this Government will do all they can to protect the livelihoods of those workers and, indeed, all workers who face redundancy as a result of not being able to find solutions to keep such plants open? We all recognise that these workers need help, and they need it today. What can be done to assure them of a future for their families, their mortgages and the debts they owe?

North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Thousands more jobs are at risk, alongside the thousands of families and jobs at risk at the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire, all because of this Government’s policies on net stupid zero, yet the Minister talks warmly about the growth prospects for Petrofac. To grow, we need an industry; to have an industry, we need more oil and gas licences. Will the Minister change course and allow exploration and more licences to produce oil and gas in the North sea?

[Michael Shanks]

I am not sure that there was a hugely coherent argument there. The hon. Gentleman seems to say that the future might be in clean energy jobs, but he says, “They might not be delivered fast enough, so we should not bother doing it.” We think there is an important long-term future in delivering clean energy, including in his constituency, where many supply chain jobs will be delivered, and he is against that economic investment. He should explain to his constituents and to the wider country why Reform wants to make this country more energy-dependent, not less energy-dependent, and why it is against the economic opportunities that our proposals bring. Even if we disagree on the climate crisis—which I find staggering, given all the evidence; I accept that he might be burying his head in the sand—we should at least agree that there is a huge economic opportunity, and an opportunity to maintain our energy security.

Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the failings of the Opposition, which we all understand very well. On the pension issue, I recognise the concern that people will have. We have to let the official receiver get under the hood and work out what has been paid and what has not, because that is not clear. Once we know, we will look into that and do what needs to be done, but I do not want to say something on the subject until we know the reality.

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

I congratulate the Minister and the Government on doing the right thing in supporting our steel industry. I have been expressing concern about Liberty Steel since 2021. This is a critical moment, and it will be interesting to see whether private sector investment can be attracted into electric arc furnaces, with electricity prices where they are. I think there is a better solution, which I have spoken about outside this House: merging Speciality Steel with British Steel to create a cohesive, excellent, strong champion of our steel industry that we all support into the future and invest in. That is the way to ensure economic growth in this country.

[Sarah Jones]

The official receiver is independent. Of course, we are very interested in this, and are keeping in close touch with the receiver on what comes out of this. The hon. Member’s idea is not necessarily foolish, on this occasion. This is a legal process, and the official receiver legally has to think of the creditors who have suffered throughout—we have to think of them as well, and make sure we do the right thing—but we will continue to do everything we can to make sure that there is a viable future, whatever form that takes.

Corporate Businesses and Franchisees: Regulatory Environment

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

That is certainly the risk. I think mergers more generally need to be looked at closely. It is why we have the Competition and Markets Authority, and why these things are indeed considered in the terms I have described.

More recently, of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) will know—as a former member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I remain a member—the Government introduced other legislation in respect of security, large businesses, mergers and all kinds of similar and related matters. It is important to gauge the national interest in all kinds of ways when one considers business activity.

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

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

However, I will say no more about that, as it would be digressing from my main theme, and I can see an eagerness to intervene—I give way to my neighbour.

[Richard Tice]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He makes a powerful case about the differences between small businesses, entrepreneurs, franchisees and the big corporates. Does he share my concern that franchisees suffer the risk of what is essentially corporate bullying from the mega-companies—the likes, potentially, of Vodafone—and that they do not have any form of umbrella regulatory comfort? Entities such as the British Franchise Association may sound effective, but they are actually toothless in the face of such corporate bullying.

[Sir John Hayes]

I have worked closely with the hon. Gentleman—as ever, he and I are on the same page here. He is absolutely right that franchising can be used as a method to exaggerate the power of the business at the heart of the franchise and to weaken the position of franchisees. My assertion is that that is common and is particular in the case of Vodafone.