British Steel

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

This decision is of critical importance to the entire economy, our national security and our national infrastructure. However, as the Father of the House has said, it is also a matter of getting to the end of the month for thousands of people. This morning, the workers on the site have been briefed on the decision. We would expect the new board to remain deeply engaged with the workforce, who will be central to ensuring a revitalised and resilient future for British Steel.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your earlier comment. It is surprising that the Secretary of State is not here to make a statement before he visits Scunthorpe, which I understand he is doing today.

Like the Father of House, I have no objections to—and have supported the Government on—saving the steelworks by nationalisation, but it can only be a short to medium-term solution. The challenges—most notably, energy costs—remain. If, as the steel Minister has previously said to me, the Government are looking to attract private investment into the industry, will he acknowledge that energy costs must be dealt with before that investment will follow?

[Blair McDougall]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The Government are very clear today that we are seeking that partnership with the private sector across the steel industry. From our side, the partnership comes with significant resources on the table, through the National Wealth Fund, to help the steel industry become more competitive, particularly on energy efficiency.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

We have a duty to stand by the steel sector, especially as it navigates unprecedented challenges, including President Trump’s unfair steel tariffs, China’s anti-competitive state aid practices, and the transition to environmentally sustainable production methods. If we are going to foster a thriving steel industry, we cannot allow more producers to collapse, more jobs to be lost, or the risk of our last blast furnaces going cold.

That is why the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary emergency and targeted step aimed specifically at turning around British Steel before it can be returned to the private sector. I am particularly glad that the Government have accepted Liberal Democrat amendments that will require the Secretary of State to have regard to the costs of nationalisation before they table regulations to nationalise a company, as well as amendments that would ensure the consideration of environmental liabilities. Those Liberal Democrat amendments will strengthen the legislation, ensuring that these measures—and indeed the Government’s broader steel strategy—move us in the right direction to set the industry on a truly sustainable footing for the long term, while providing taxpayers with real value for money.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 ensure that if the Secretary of State is to exercise the principal transfer power, the Government must consider the expected cost to the taxpayer. That is important not only for business and industry to have certainty over the nationalisation process, but for taxpayers, who need to know that their money is not being wasted or paid to foreign owners who will leave our industries high and dry.

I am glad that the Government have also agreed to Liberal Democrat amendments that will strengthen the treatment of environmental liabilities in relation to the steel undertaking and ensure that they are explicitly identified and accounted for before compensation payments are made. On top of those legislative concessions, we are glad that the Government accepted other Liberal Democrat calls, including holding a debate in each House within 12 months of Royal Assent and requiring any future chair of a nationalised company to appear before the Business and Trade Committee. Those significant improvements to the legislation promote parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

We also welcome the Government’s having listened to Liberal Democrat peers and introduction of written ministerial statements on the day of acquisition, which will be repeated every three months until we reach a year from nationalisation. Again, that change boosts transparency, enabling Parliament to scrutinise the measures’ impact on local communities and jobs. Lastly, we are glad that the Government adopted Liberal Democrat proposals to strengthen the UK Steel Council and its role in facilitating nationalisation within the context of the steel strategy.

Steel is a vital sector, bringing far-reaching benefits across the UK. It provides key materials for our national infrastructure from defence to renewable energy, and creates thousands of good jobs across the UK. The Liberal Democrats welcome the action that the Government are taking to protect British steel, backing a key plank of our critical national infrastructure. I am glad that the Government have worked constructively with the Liberal Democrats and that Ministers have adopted many of our proposals to improve transparency and accountability around the financial and environmental costs of any forthcoming measures. We will continue to constructively scrutinise the Government as they put these new measures in force to ensure that steel producers, local jobs and British taxpayers are properly supported and treated fairly.

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

I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Lords amendments. As hon. Members will know, part of my constituency takes in the Scunthorpe steelworks, and hundreds of my constituents work there. My aim throughout the rather tortuous and long saga about the future of the steelworks has been to ensure that their jobs are retained.

As the shadow Secretary of State outlined, the Bill could have been further improved, but I am delighted that we have at least reached a conclusion. There will be a sigh of relief among my many constituents who rely on the steelworks for their employment.

I look forward to engaging with the Minister as we move forward on the future of the steelworks—because, as I think he is well aware, if energy costs in particular stay as they are, there are future disasters ahead. We must do something on energy costs if we are to maintain any sort of a steel industry and heavy industry in the UK.

I thank the Minister for getting us to this point and look forward to working with him in the future.

[Chris McDonald]

I have listened carefully to the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks and those from the shadow Minister, and I will address them in a moment. I am grateful for the support of the Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), and of the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), both of whom are unable to speak in the debate as a result of their positions elsewhere in the House.

I opened by remarking on the constructive and careful consideration that the Bill has had in the other place; it is disappointing to see that the shadow Secretary of State is not taking the same approach. I will pick up a couple of the issues he raised. I am acutely aware of the position in which the previous Government left us, with uncompetitive energy prices for industry. If he had been attentive in some of the debates we have been involved in, he would be aware of some of the measures that I have taken to address that. Those include our energy-intensive scheme, increased relief on our supercharger scheme and our British industrial competitiveness scheme. I am determined to do more.

On tariffs, I am not saying that making the decision on tariffs was easy, but the shadow Secretary of State would clearly throw British industry to the mercy of dumped steel on the global market. We will not make that decision. He mentions coal for coking ovens. He may be unaware that there are no coking ovens in Scunthorpe. They were closed on his watch.

This Government are acting decisively and with purpose in the national interest, but the shadow Secretary of State is blinded by his ideological position on nationalisation. We believe that a steel industry, where necessary run by the Government and owned by the people, at least gives the opportunity to attract private sector investment. If the public interest test is met, that is the right thing to do. But if that does not convince the shadow Secretary of State, perhaps I can appeal to his sense of patriotism. I said on Second Reading that the England men’s football team had only ever won the world cup in a year when we had nationalised the steel industry. If he has any sense of duty towards our team and wishes them well, he should support nationalisation this time as well.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 18 agreed to.

Steel Trade Measure

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is right to defend her constituents’ interests. We have tried to meet the precise concerns that she raises. I would be happy to go through with her on Monday afternoon each of the different categories of steel that might be applicable to her area. Some people have given the impression that we are cutting all categories of steel and that nobody will be able to bring in categories of steel without being tariffed. Actually, the quotas in most areas allow for historical levels of imports, and in others areas where we produce in the UK we are trying to persuade people to buy and use British steel. That is the whole aim of the measure. We are trying to get two wins out of this. As I say, I am happy to take my hon. Friend through the various specifics in relation to individual categories, if she wants, on Monday afternoon.

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

Hundreds of my constituents work at Scunthorpe steel, so I am obviously supportive of any action that the Government take that will protect those jobs. I also welcome the adjustments that the Minister has announced, and I agree that it is preposterous that defence contracts do not ensure that we use British steel. Surely doing that is one of the benefits of not being tied to EU procurement rules. Does he agree that it is in the Government’s gift to ensure that the industry benefits from reduced energy costs? What will the Government do to ensure that the Scunthorpe works benefit from lower energy costs in the very near future?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member will know that we changed the rules of the supercharger in April this year, taking the support from 60% to 90% of energy costs. The point is well made about energy costs being one of the things that have made it difficult for steel over the last decade. On whether we are better being in or out of the European Union, one of the ironies is that if we were in the European Union, we would not have to be negotiating about its imposition of tariffs and quotas on us. I am not sure that that is a very good line of argument. Finally, I was pleased to see in Kyiv in January that one of the six bridges that had been destroyed by the Russians when trying to invade the city had been rebuilt—and guess where the steel was made? The United Kingdom. That is the kind of thing that we should be investing in.

North Sea Oil and Gas

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend and colleague brings forward the exact motivations of many people who speak to me. I endorse what he says, as I am sure others will.

When it comes to our national future, security must always come first. Global instability proves that we cannot simply rely on foreign regimes for our oil and gas. If we abandon the North sea, we hand total control of our energy bills over to unpredictable international markets. We must remember the workers; I say that as a non-Labour man, but I mean it.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case for the domestic industry. Does he agree that, in this troubled period of world history, our refining capacity in the UK should also be maintained? As he will know, Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency was recently closed, although some operations continue. Does he agree that we have to maintain capacity across the industry?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman underlines the issues. He is an assiduous and hard-working MP; his constituents should be proud of what he does. Those problems are happening not just in his area but elsewhere. The by-election result is an indication of that, for those who take note. Tens of thousands of highly skilled British jobs depend directly on this vital sector. Furthermore, we must confront the import myth: importing foreign fuel creates higher global emissions than extracting our own safely right here at home. The benefits cannot be ignored; that is an advantage of our own oil and our own drilling capacity.

We need to support a common-sense transition that values realism over rhetoric. We must secure our baseload energy before transitioning to unproven new technologies. I am committed to protecting the Union; I know that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove is as well, and I thank him for that. Protecting the Union means understanding that a strong, self-reliant United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland requires utilising every single national resource available to us. Ultimately, domestic oil will fund the future, as the tax revenues generated from it are exactly what we need to finance our future green infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to the fact that we are committed to net zero, but there has to be realism about how we approach that.

The Democratic Unionist party stands for energy independence. We stand for the British worker. We stand for a pragmatic, common-sense strategy that keeps the lights on and the bills affordable.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Martin Vickers Excerpts

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

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

As Members will be aware, part of the Scunthorpe steelworks site falls within my Brigg and Immingham constituency. As such, hundreds of my constituents work there, and hundreds more are employed in the supply chain. With that in mind, I made it known to my constituents a number of weeks ago that I would support this Bill. It could have been improved, and the Opposition tabled some perfectly sensible amendments, which I supported. However, having got to this stage, I think it is only right that we give our full support to the business and, more importantly, to the workers employed there. I thank the Minister with responsibility for steel. We have had a number of meetings in recent weeks, and he has been extremely helpful.

As I said in a previous contribution to this debate, it is not natural for me as a Conservative to support a nationalisation Bill, but the reality is that it is of course a restructuring. The existing position whereby the Chinese own the business and the Government in effect run it is clearly unsustainable, and we cannot allow that to continue, so it is a perfectly sensible move. I was reassured by what the Minister said in yesterday’s debate about the Government looking for private sector involvement, whether that be a wholesale sale or a partnership arrangement. I have met two or three groups that are interested in investing in the sector. Indeed, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) and I had quite an interesting evening a few weeks ago listening to what was, I think it is fair to say, quite an ambitious plan for steel, so there are organisations and businesses that are prepared to invest.

Scunthorpe without steel would not be Scunthorpe. As a resident of Grimsby, I have witnessed what can happen to a town when it loses its core industry—in the case of Grimsby, it was of course the deep-sea fishing industry—and when that happens, it takes about two generations for the local economy to be able to sustain the jobs that are necessary. On that basis, I will certainly be supporting the Bill.

The Minister was not quite 100% clear when challenged about the continuation of production in blast furnaces. I know the situation, and I recognise that a long-term move to electric arc furnaces is perhaps the only way to sustain the industry and the jobs in Scunthorpe. So I await developments with interest, but at this stage I welcome the Bill, which is a sensible way forward and has my full support.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Martin Vickers Excerpts

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

[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.

UK Steel Strategy

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I thank my hon. Friend for her thoughtful contribution, which is based on experience. Llanwern has a fierce advocate in my hon. Friend. I hope that she recognises that her campaigning over many years is reflected in the strategy. I can reassure her that this strategy is not the end; it is just the beginning. The investment, transformation and modernisation programme is only just starting.

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

Hundreds of my constituents work at the Scunthorpe steelworks, and hundreds more are reliant on the supply chain. They want certainty about their future. Will the Secretary of State give a clear indication of how long he anticipates the existing blast furnaces will be in operation? If the Government’s intention is to build arc furnaces, will they be established in Scunthorpe?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful intervention. He has campaigned on this issue for a long time. I can reassure him that conversations with the owner are ongoing, and that the £2.5 billion that the Government have committed is for the transformation of the sector for a sustainable future. There will be more domestic demand, we will benefit from efficiencies and economies of scale, and we can start to rebuild and re-industrialise the steel sector. That benefits his community and other steel communities up and down the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

My hon. Friend is right: Cornwall has loads of critical minerals. They will be beneficial in driving not only the UK economy but great businesses and export opportunities. As we have said before, we want companies to scale and grow in the UK, to be headquartered and listed in the UK, and to provide great jobs in the UK. That is why I am working with my hon. Friend and his Cornish Labour colleagues, and with the industry and capital markets in the UK, to corral capital into Cornish critical minerals.

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

Since part of Grimsby falls in my constituency, I join my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), in celebrating Great Grimsby Day. I recently attended a meeting with the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) and a group of potential investors in the steel industry, who I know have made approaches to the Secretary of State. Can he give me an assurance that all potential private sector investments in the industry will be given serious consideration?

[Peter Kyle]

I congratulate the hon. Member on Great Grimsby Day, and I can give him that assurance.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

Our focus is on ensuring that the talks that are under way are productive, and that they end with measures that will get the delivery service improved and the business on to a sustainable footing. As I have mentioned, we have an undertaking that the owners are not allowed to take value out of the company until service standards improve.

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

My constituents who have lodged complaints with the local Royal Mail are receiving messages that say:

“We’re sorry to advise that deliveries in parts of the DN31-DN37 postcodes are being disrupted due to resourcing issues at the Grimsby Delivery Office.”

Will the Minister give an assurance that, if he has not already done so, he will urge Royal Mail to deal with these staffing resources? It is an acceptable reason in the short term, but not in the long term.

[Blair McDougall]

Whenever hon. Members raise local delivery issues with me, I raise them directly with Royal Mail officials. I will certainly do so for his area because his constituents deserve a better service.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Obviously we would like to do so. As the MP for the next-door constituency, and having visited the factory myself, I am keen to ensure that we do so. A large part of this programme is a Ministry of Defence responsibility, and I will make sure that the MOD writes to the hon. Gentleman.

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

I return again to the steel industry, and thank the steel Minister for the meeting we held a few weeks ago. I was contacted by a couple of employers in Scunthorpe last week who expressed concern about recent reports of publicly funded contracts using foreign-produced steel. Could the Minister give an assurance that British-produced steel will take priority in such cases?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his positive and constructive engagement on this issue. I do understand the concerns of the steelworkers in Scunthorpe. I know precisely the projects he is referring to; they were not procured under public procurement rules, and the developers and tier 1 contractors involved have followed their own rules and commitments. However, it is the case that this Government want to see more British steel used in both public and other projects around the country, which is a matter both for developing steel capability and, potentially, for reviewing our procurement rules.