Richard Tice MP: speeches

433 published records · newest first.

Speeches

8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source
More
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.
8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source
More
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.
8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source
More
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?
8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source
More
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.
8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source
More
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.
8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source
More
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.
8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source
More
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.
2 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
Once again, those on the Government Front Bench have inadvertently misled the House in saying that there is a single price internationally for gas—gas is 80% cheaper in the US than it is here in the UK. When will the Secretary of State grant oil and gas licences in Jackdaw, Rosebank and other fields in the North sea to increase supply and bring down bills?
21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source
More
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?
21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source
More
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.
13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source
More
The hon. Gentleman clearly has not looked at the data, because it shows that we have secured some 1,450 new councillors. I think the Labour party has lost well over 1,000 councillors, to the benefit of our great country.
13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source
More
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. Although people may have enjoyed my dialogue, others wish to speak. The key thing about the utter failure of this programme of government is this: having listened last week to the voters in the midlands and the north—in Labour heartlands—who voted 10 years ago for less EU and less European interference, what is this Government’s brilliant response? They have stuck two fingers up to the former Labour voters in the midlands and the northern heartlands, and said, “We’re going to ignore you. We’re going to try and go back to the failing European Union.” That surely highlights the arrogance and stubbornness of this dreadful Government.
13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source
More
What we want is smart and safe regulation; we do not want daftness, dither and delay, and this Prime Minister represents all those three things. In a desire to be constructive, I have scoured the King’s Speech and found some good news. The greatest news in this programme of government is that there is one Bill in which this Government have copied and learned from Reform. They have listened to what I said almost exactly a year ago: that we must nationalise British Steel, invest in it, and grow it, so that it becomes the heart of our sovereign steel-making capability. Although this is somewhat delayed, after a year, this Prime Minister has thankfully listened to me and Reform. There is another important area: the critical issue of special educational needs and the Government’s plans for a Bill to follow the White Paper. That is incredibly important to so many children and parents across all our constituencies. The White Paper was produced by the Secretary of State some weeks ago, and I have said in this House that there will hopefully be much that can reassure parents. As we look at the details of the Bill, I hope that we will find that some of the measures being brought forward will give better, faster outcomes for children, and reduce the conflict between parents and councils. I urge the Government to try to accelerate some of those measures for the benefit of so many children. That is absolutely vital. However, I regret to say that there is some very bad news in this King’s Speech. We all talk about the energy bills crisis, but the plans for an energy independence Bill will make things dramatically worse. Completely unbelievably, and ignoring all the evidence from the growth of the ’80s and ’90s in the last century, when we grew by 2.5% to 4% most years, because we used the great energy treasure of oil and gas in the North sea, this Government think it is a good idea to ban all new exploration of oil and gas fields. That is not a good idea; it is a terrible idea. That is unbelievable. We must be the only nation in the world with the joy, the pleasure and the treasure of oil and gas that says, “No, it’s a good idea to leave it down there.” That is unbelievably incompetent and negligent, and it is the reason why we have such high energy bills. That is an absolute tragedy, because that could drive up growth and prosperity, so we must absolutely ensure that that does not happen. Here is my deepest concern of all about this programme of government. In a sense, we in Reform are joyous; we completely smashed it last Thursday in the local elections. After May 2025, and the success of our brilliant 10 councils on which we have a majority, voters have said, “We want more Reform.” They have given us full control of 10 more councils, and there are another nine councils in which we are the largest party.
13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source
More
I will share the love by giving way to the right hon. Lady.
13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source
More
I will give way to this good-looking gentleman.
13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source
More
I congratulate Plaid Cymru on its success, but I note the success of Reform as the second-largest party in Wales. We are proud to be the largest Unionist party across Scotland and Wales.
13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source
More
Bear with me, because I am in full flow. I believe that we have seen the last important speech from this Prime Minister. Let us see what the next few days bring.
13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source
More
Eighty-six years ago today, on 13 May 1940, Britain’s greatest and most popular Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, rose to give his first speech as Prime Minister. At a time of war, he said that he could offer nothing but blood, sweat and tears. Eighty-six years later, we have heard from Britain’s most unpopular and possibly worst Prime Minister ever. After just 22 months, all we have had is failure, incompetence and negligence. We have a programme of government in this King’s Speech that, in a sense, represents everything that the Prime Minister we currently suffer under represents—process and regulation. The thing is that that just drives up costs. I can see nothing in this programme of government that will actually reduce bills and the cost of living and drive up growth, prosperity and the quantity of jobs.
13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source
More
That is interesting, because I spent most of the election campaign in the west midlands, where we absolutely smashed it. We secured full control of councils such as Newcastle-under-Lyme and Walsall, and we are now the largest party in Birmingham, which is truly remarkable. We are also the largest party in Bradford, which is fantastic news. That success is because voters have looked at this Government and the failures of this Prime Minister, and they have said, “We want to vote Reform, and we want this Prime Minister out.” I suspect that what we have seen—
13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source
More
If we have just won and become the largest party in Bradford, by definition we must be popular. Obviously, I would like to please everybody, but sometimes that is not possible; that is the joy of democracy. The reality is that the voters have spoken.
13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source
More
Well, that is the joy of competition, and given what happened in last week’s elections, we seem to be winning the competition. I conclude by saying that surely this Government should have listened to voters last week and said, “Actually, we’ve got it wrong on energy. We need more oil and gas to bring the bills down, just as they are bringing them down in the United States. We need to be more sovereign and independent, and more distant from the failing economic model of Brussels.” Instead, they have done the opposite. However, I bring hope to this country: the good news is that once there is a new, unelected Labour Prime Minister, that will accelerate a general election, in which the country will vote Reform.
28 Apr 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source
More
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the proliferation of these houses in multiple occupation is leading to whole streets being transformed and communities being torn apart, with no sense of engagement from those occupying these HMOs, and it is leading to rubbish, mess, destitution, disruption and utter chaos in streets and whole communities?
28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source
More
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but let me remind him what the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister’s questions just last week: “No pressure existed whatsoever”. “Whatsoever” is the critical word, and that is the flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument. We now know that not only did the Prime Minister inadvertently mislead the House with regard to “full due process”, but he has misled the House a second time with regard to whether or not any pressure existed “whatsoever”. The evidence is in; while this is a Prime Minister who prides himself on process, anecdotally it seems that that is a culture that does not exist around him or perhaps within him. For example, we now know that those in the Cabinet Office questioned whether there should be any vetting at all. In other words, they did not want full due process. We now know, too, that in respect of the decision on whether to retain Sir Olly Robbins or fire him, full due process was not followed. As for the issue of whether or not a decision to refer any Member of the House to the Privileges Committee should be whipped, precedent clearly shows that it should not. I would argue that precedent is a process, and that in this instance, the process of not whipping a vote of this kind is not being followed. I therefore urge all Members to ignore the whipping, to follow their conscience, and to follow the evidence. The evidence is in: the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House of Commons.
28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source
More
The motion to refer the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee revolves around two words. Pressure is the first. The other, which is vital, is process. Of course, the Prime Minister is the master of process. He bangs on about it all the time. He is the king of process here in the Commons. He says that “full due process” was followed, yet we have already heard from other hon. Members that Sir Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, gave the Prime Minister due process in November 2024. Sir Simon said that the vetting and due diligence should be carried out before confirming the choice of ambassador. The Prime Minister chose to avoid that due process. There is a second key element of due process that has not been properly teased out so far this afternoon, and it relates to the timing of the decision on vetting through January 2025. If full due process was being followed, the security authorities and the vetting authorities should have been allowed to take whatever time they deemed necessary to make their judgment. With Mandelson—goodness me—there was a lot to go through to check that clearance. We have heard from a number of senior civil servants that they were not allowed to carry out full due process and to take as long as they determined was necessary, even if that took them beyond the inauguration of the President of the United States—no, no. I shall move on to the second work, which is whether any pressure whatsoever was applied. We have heard from not one, not two, but three separate senior civil servants that the pressure was not on the decision itself, but on the speed of the decision, because the decision had already been taken by due process not being followed. We have heard Sir Olly Robbins confirm that pressure was felt to get on with the decision; we heard yesterday from Ian Collard that pressure was applied for that decision to be made; and we have, of course, heard from Sir Philip Barton that—again—the pressure was to “get on with it.” There was “no space” in the decision. In other words, due process was not followed.
27 Apr 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update · Hansard source
More
With regard to the release of these Mandelson documents, there is genuine concern about what may be redacted and what may not. Given the ongoing dispute as to the pressure brought to bear between No. 10 and the Foreign Office, can the Minister confirm that nothing will be redacted with regard to pressure brought to bear on the Foreign Office about the vetting process?

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →