Richard Tice MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I will give away shortly; I am doing well. The reality is that industries across our country are being slaughtered and jobs are being destroyed—from pottery businesses to aluminium businesses, chemical businesses, steel businesses and oil refineries. Why? Because of our high energy costs. We have seen the brilliant, highly skilled, highly qualified jobs in Aberdeen being slaughtered because this Government will not allow more exploration of the North sea. This is the reaction, and this is the consequence of net stupid zero.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  There we are. Apparently Labour Members want more asbestos, when we know that is dangerous—yes, it is in the wind turbines. The reality is—

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Shut the borders!

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Oh dear, oh dear. How desperately sad it is that the hon. Lady does not appreciate that the wholesale price of electricity, which some claim is driven by gas, is about a third, so it is not the majority—a third is less than 50%. The simple reality is that there is a direct causal link between the growth of renewable generating capacity in the last 20 years and the growth of our electricity prices to the highest in the western world. That is the reason that everybody is feeling so much poorer. It is as simple as that. All the advocates of the renewables industry cannot answer the question: when are the bills going to come down? The answer is: they are not going to. The Government can try to cheat by putting it into general taxation, but the simple fact is that, actually, costs are going to go up. We have heard, for example, that the cost of more contracts for difference is going to increase by £4 billion, £5 billion or £6 billion by 2030, and that the extra cost to the grid is going to increase by some £10 billion a year by 2030. Per household—which is how people will want to understand it—that equates to about £500 per year extra on the cost of living because of the costs of net zero. Everybody needs to understand that point, as they debate and vote on this issue. As we look to the future, having explained the history and the economics to those who do not seem to understand, we hear that the Secretary of State for Energy—he is rather absent at the moment; where is he?—wants to get rid of all our wonderful tumble dryers. No, no, we can’t have tumble dryers in the brave new world of the Secretary of State for Energy! Then we hear that, through this carbon budget, the Government want us to reduce our dairy and meat consumption by some 20%. We have had enough of this. We should vote against this ridiculous motion and scrap net stupid zero.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  And what labour are the Chinese using? Slave labour is what they are using—that is the reality. They are laughing as they sell us Chinese cheap solar panels to cover our brilliant food-productive farmland in Lincolnshire and elsewhere. It is insane.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I would be delighted to give way to the hon. Lady.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  It is an excellent idea to talk about the economics. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) could not answer this simple question, but perhaps the hon. Lady can instead: when will the bills come down?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Well, we are debating the carbon budget order, but I think we should rename it the job-destroying, industry-killing order, because that is essentially what net zero is doing. For the hon. Members who do not appreciate the economics of this, let us go on a little history lesson, shall we? Let us go back to the 20-year period between 1980 and 2000. Yes, our energy consumption increased by some 20%, and real GDP per capita—per person—increased every year by 3.2% per annum. Let me now take everyone forward to the last 20 years: our energy consumption has declined by about 15%, and guess what has happened to our GDP per person? Yes, it has collapsed to just 0.5% per annum. There is a direct link between the quantity of energy we consume—

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Given that we have reduced our carbon emissions by some 54% since 1990, perhaps the shadow Secretary of State agrees with me that we have led the way and done our bit. It is now time for others to do theirs.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The renewables sector keeps saying that it is going to reduce the bills, yet the bills are going up. Indeed, only recently an energy boss said that even if the price of gas went to zero—clearly, it is not going to, folks—our electricity bills at the next general election, assuming that is in 2029, will be even higher. Why? Because of all the increased policy costs, increased levies, increased constraint costs and beyond.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  What a tragedy it is that the truth clearly hurts for the Green party; and, by the way, the Greens do not believe in carbon capture, which has been mentioned previously. The simple fact is that there is a direct relationship between higher energy use per capita and higher GDP per capita—the richer a nation is. That is the fundamental point that everybody in this place seems to forget. As we have reduced our carbon emissions since 1990 by 54%, people seem to forget that carbon emissions around the world are increasing. Other nations are not admiring our net zero leadership; they are laughing at our utter stupidity, as they steal our jobs and our money. They are laughing at us.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman just answer a very simple question, as this is in the Labour manifesto and the Secretary of State bangs on about it week after week? When will energy bills and electricity bills come down?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Enough is enough. Frankly, the sight of US hedge funds picking over the carcase of Thames Water’s pipe network is revolting—it stinks. The plan includes three quarters of a billion pounds of payments to hedge funds, shareholders, debt holders and bankers. It is completely unacceptable. Thames Water is bust: it is insolvent. Now is the time to put it into special administration. It cannot meet its financial obligations, and it cannot meet its performance obligations. I urge the Secretary of State to get on with it, put Thames Water into a special administration regime, and then buy it out for a pound. That would be a good deal for the taxpayer.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 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

  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

  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

  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.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Chancellor aware that the price of gas in the US is 10% lower than at the start of the war, while here in the UK it is 30% higher? That proves that if we produce what we consume, there is actually a domestic price of gas. Will she have a word in the shell-like ear of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and tell him to get on and approve the licences at Jackdaw and beyond, including onshore? That would mean more gas, more production and lower prices.

• 16 Apr 2026 · British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  All our constituents are worried about the price of energy, including the price of gas. But is the Prime Minister aware that the price of gas in the US has fallen by 20% since the start of this war while the price of gas in the UK has increased by 50%, proving that if we produce and consume our gas domestically we can have much lower bills, and proving too why we must allow the consents for Jackdaw, Rosebank and all of the oil fields across the North sea and onshore as well?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Middle East Conflict: Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has just misled the House—inadvertently, I am sure. Can he explain why the price of gas in the United States is about a third of the price of gas in the UK? It is because the Americans use it domestically, is it not?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  This is a critical question. Who is more dangerous to the British economy—the Secretary of State for Energy or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier today, the Secretary of State refused to answer my question about why the price of gas in the United States is between a third and a quarter of the price of gas here in the UK. Perhaps the Minister could help us all and help the British people with that question, which goes to the heart of the price of gas and the size and cost of our bills.