Richard Tice
MP for Boston and Skegness · Reform UK · United Kingdom
“Congratulations to the Government on doing what I have been urging for seven years, which is to take this strategic national asset into public ownership. What is needed now is a comprehensive, bold vision for the blast furnaces. I am concerned about the talk about more electric arc furnaces.”
“The dictionary definition of gerrymandering is the manipulation of boundaries to suit a particular party, and decision after decision after decision in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and many, many more have, surprisingly, been the local Labour party’s proposal.”
“East Midlands Railway has cut replacement bus services on a stand-by basis when there is not sufficient railway capacity in peak season. I am concerned that that is because it is deliberately cutting any form of expenditure before going over to Great British Railways.”
“There is complete chaos at the National Energy System Operator. Whistleblowers are phoning politicians to express their concerns about blackouts. Independent investigators have had to be appointed, and NESO had to cut the interconnector for exports, without notice, in order to guarantee supplies.”
“While his own MPs may have sent him off without resorting to VAR, I have some good news for the Prime Minister: under his tenure, 76% of England football matches have been won, which is the greatest, most successful record of any Prime Minister in history.”
“Despite being a foot taller than her, I somehow always found myself looking up to her. When she phoned, I always stood up on my toes: incoming—beware! That was Ann. We will miss her dearly. Also, the Scottish whisky industry has lost a very discerning customer.”
The complete record
Every one of 505 lines we hold for Richard Tice, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 11.
“The Labour party stood on a platform of removing cronyism.” As other Members have rightly said, the country is sick and tired of the cronyism of cloth of ermine. It feels like cash for cloth. We are done with it. We have had enough of it. We want this sorted. This is an opportunity for the Government: if they are not going to do it at this phase, they have a Parliament of four years ahead. Will they commit, as a Government, to go from phase 2 to phase 3? They can have the debate around the country about what the House of Lords should look like, but I urge them, on behalf of tens of millions of people who want proper reform of the House of Lords, to get on with it, please, and not to wait another 25 years.”
“I am a big fan of reform, and I detect, with the exception of one or two Members, appetite for reform of the House of Lords. But if the Government are going to do a job, they should do it properly. The Government, who often lament having waited 14 years to come back to power, have had plenty of time to get themselves organised and ready for the reform of the House of Lords. Some of us of a certain age remember the last reform 25 years ago. The Paymaster General said earlier that this was just phase 1; no, this is phase 2. I cannot wait 25 years for phase 3. We want to get on with it, and the country wants to get on with it. I think that the country will appreciate this phase of reform, but they will say, “Hang on, Prime Minister.”
“He was so generous with his words of advice, wisdom and encouragement, and I will never, ever forget that. None of us likes losing, but I was with the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (Sir David Davis) last year at the Edinburgh fringe, and we had a hearty, inspired debate—I will not tell the House the topic—hosted by Alex Salmond, and I have to say, it was like the right hon. Gentleman and I were in the lion’s den. It was one of those rare moments when we enjoyed losing, because we lost to a truly great man.”
“Further to those points of order, Mr Speaker. I share on behalf of all those at Reform our deepest condolences to Moira and to Alex’s wider family. I met Alex Salmond just over two years ago in the world of media. I had a radio show every Sunday for about two years. It was all going fine until I took a holiday and Alex Salmond kindly stepped in. In over 100 shows, I survived the challenges of investigations and things, but Alex’s enthusiasm, energy and determination in that three-hour show meant that it was the only show of mine that triggered an Ofcom investigation. Although we differed politically, Alex sort of sought me out in the media, and I think he took pity on me, in a strange way, because he understood the challenges—the mad challenge of trying to set up, run and fund a small political party.”
“May I suggest that the Leader of the House celebrates her special birthday by granting a debate on the amendments to the international health regulations that were agreed at the World Health Assembly in the summer, and that we give MPs a vote on the issue before we hand over sovereignty over important matters of national public health to the World Health Organisation?”
“If it becomes embedded in all of us through a major publicity campaign, which could be organised relatively quickly, to ask ourselves that simple question, “Could it be sepsis?”, in the same way that we often ask, “Could it be meningitis?”, and if we could help medical professionals by asking them that question too, we will have the ability to prevent death or major life-changing injuries and to save money for the NHS. It is a massive win-win, and I hope the Minister can rapidly respond both positively and appropriately.”
“It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing the debate. These are extraordinary tales that we hear from loved ones and family. A very good friend of mine nearly died of sepsis seven years ago, but—I have to be honest—I had never heard of it until that moment when he nearly passed away. This could be one of the most extraordinary opportunities for our healthcare system to make a rapid difference. Sepsis is so quick but so preventable. In the pressured environment of our hospitals and our GPs’ surgeries, it is so easy for healthcare professionals to miss it.”
“Properties with assured tenancies were worth approximately only 80% of those with assured shorthold tenancies. I say to the Minister, in the Secretary of State’s absence, that the risk here is that if the Government get this wrong, the capital will disappear, the quantity of properties to rent will reduce and the quantity of supply to be built for the private rented sector will reduce. I urge the Government to keep these measures under close review as the Bill passes through the House. If they get the balance wrong and it is made too difficult to secure vacant possession—particularly of properties with tenants involved in antisocial behaviour or not paying their rent—the supply will reduce dramatically.”
“I think that is particularly so in Scotland, where there have been even tighter restrictions and the availability of properties for rent has reduced. Of course, what we all want is the opposite—a greater supply of rental properties—but that requires additional capital for additional new homes to be built. That is a key objective of the Government that I think all of us support, but to ensure sufficient reward and attraction for that capital, landlords need to know that the balance of risks and rewards is appropriate and that vacant possession can be secured. I am old enough, ladies and gentleman, to remember the ’70s and ’80s—[Hon. Members: “Surely not.”] I know. A two-tier market emerged between what were called assured tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies, for which vacant possession could be secured.”
“I congratulate hon. Members on their excellent maiden speeches this afternoon and declare an interest as someone who has been involved in the commercial and residential property sector for over 35 years. The thing is, there are many good and noble intentions in the Bill. The Secretary of State outlined them and I think the whole House endorses them. She spoke about the need to balance rights between tenants and landlords. That is a matter of judgment, and I fully respect that the Government are making a series of judgments and decisions. The reality is, though, that in the last five years, the quantity of private sector properties available to rent in the United Kingdom has reduced by about 50%. As more restrictions and regulations are imposed, the quantity is going down.”
“If the Bill passes—it is likely to—perhaps the Minister should review it in a year by looking at the data and seeing what is happening to rents, what is happening to supply and whether further tweaks and adjustments are needed.”
“It is a really good question, and I am happy to answer it. If the landlord pulls a property available to rent out of the market, it will go into the ownership sector and that property will not be available to rent. We know that there is significant demand to rent, and I say to the Government that we want to increase the supply of properties available to rent. I therefore repeat the point that it is about risk and reward. The Government must make these judgments. I just say to the Minister that he should keep this closely under review. If the Government get the balance wrong, the market will reduce while demand will continue to rise, so rents will rise as the supply reduces. That is my concern.”
“It is extraordinary. I give one example: I have had a letter from a constituent who has two children with SEN provision. She cannot afford the extra 20% so she has to put her children into the state system. There is no capacity within an hour’s drive, so she has a quote from the local taxi firm. The cost to the local authority will be over £20,000 in taxi fares per child. That is not only damaging to the education of children; it is an economics of utter tomfoolery and madness.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. What irony that the Government have sent a Minister to listen to these debates who went to a private school. I wonder whether his parents would have been able to afford the extra 20%. However, as the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) said, this is about the education not just of those at independent schools, but of the hundreds of thousands in the state system. Their education will also be damaged because of the capacity crisis. Class sizes will grow. There is an SEN crisis everywhere. Local authorities are in panic; headteachers are in panic; parents are in panic and, most shamefully of all, children are panicking. Will they be removed from their school in the middle of a school year, be taken from their friends and have their education damaged?”
“The tragedy of this debate is the vitriolic negativity, when all of us could surely unite in our desire to improve the education of all. The Government could have done something so different. They could have said to the independent sector, “You’re doing well, chaps. Can you give us a bit of help? Can you work with us? Can you share more of your expertise, your wisdom, your success and your facilities? In particular, can you help with regard to special educational needs, where the independent sector is doing so well at no cost to the taxpayer?” I think that would have gained universal enthusiasm and support.”
“As I finish, I ask the Minister to answer this simple question: if those legal challenges end up in the European Court of Human Rights and it rules that the policy is unlawful, will his Government comply with that ruling?”
“Those are the unintended real-world consequences of this choice by this Government. Most shamefully of all, because there is such a lack of capacity in so many areas and so many local authorities, that choice is going to result in bigger class sizes. That means more pressure on hard-pressed teachers in the state system, at a time when we are trying to ease that pressure. This choice is going to damage the education of many hundreds of thousands of children—exactly the opposite of what is intended. I say to the Minister and his Government that they could choose differently. They could pause this policy, work with the independent sector and gain much more universal support. Instead, we have legal challenges going ahead.”
“No, we are short of time. As a former governor of an independent school, I know that that approach would have been welcomed by the independent sector. Instead, the choice that the Government have made will do the opposite of what they intend. It is not going to raise anything like the funding they think it will: almost 100,000 children will leave the independent sector, many of whom have special educational needs, so it will earn almost nothing. I spoke earlier about the unintended consequences of this policy. A parent in my constituency has written to me. She has two children with special educational needs at private school, and she cannot afford the VAT, so they are going to go into the state system. The nearest place is an hour away, so now the local authority is going to pick up the cost of the taxi service of over £20,000 per child.”
“In the mid-1960s, when Mauritius was granted independence, it agreed, as part of that deal, to relinquish all claims to this British sovereign territory, which we have owned since the treaty of Paris in 1814. Why does the Foreign Secretary see fit to do a deal with a nation that has reneged on a previous deal, and why are we selling a sovereign asset that we all agree is of great value for no money up front? We are paying them. It is negligent.”
“Ten million pensioners will find it utterly extraordinary that this Government can find over £20 billion when they cannot find £1 billion to fund the winter fuel payment. That is £20 billion to invest in what the Secretary of State has today admitted is a risky technology—I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with the co-leader of the Green party, the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), on that. The extraordinary thing is that this is almost £1,000 per household. Will this sum of taxpayers’ money be added to general taxation, when taxes are already at record highs, or will it be added to our energy bills, which the Secretary of State has promised will be brought down?”
“I think the whole House agrees with what the Secretary of State said in his statement: the NHS needs reform. In reality, when I speak to people in the NHS, almost all of them say that this is not about a shortage of money, but about the legendary levels of waste, bureaucracy and mismanagement. Indeed, the report refers specifically to the huge number of regulators, accountants and bureaucrats from the top down. Is there recognition among the NHS senior leadership that management reform is a critical part of improving healthcare in the United Kingdom?”
“The truth is—and the country needs to know this—that the thousands of jobs and the loss of the blast furnaces announced today is because of both main parties’ obsession with net zero. The reality is that blast furnaces have been losing money because of high energy costs caused by very expensive renewable energy, but we are where we are. In the event that Tata does not build the electric arc furnaces that are being promised, will the Secretary of State guarantee the House that the taxpayers’ money will be returned to the taxpayer?”
“Can the Secretary of State explain why, when some 10,000 foreign criminals are blocking up space in our jails, they are not being removed and deported, which would simultaneously save the British taxpayer billions of pounds every year and have the support of millions of British voters?”
“It is true that this Government have made a calculated deliberate, heartless, cruel choice to enrich their union paymasters, to enrich public sector workers with no requirements on productivity, to enrich well-paid train drivers and to impoverish pensioners. Let me tell this House that voters will not forget and they will not forgive.”
“Last Friday in Boston I was stopped by a pensioner, a lovely lady called Elizabeth, who shook my hand and burst into tears—uncontrollable tears of genuine fear. She represents more than 22,200 pensioners in Boston and Skegness who will lose out through this cruel policy. It was the fear of being cold this winter—not knowing how cold—and the fear of what will happen to energy prices in October. How high will they go in January? It was the unbelievable fear of not knowing whether she will see the end of winter, because that is the reality: older, colder people die early. We have heard about choices a lot today.”
“What is the Secretary of State going to do about the capacity crisis that is rapidly emerging as tens of thousands of children are being forced out of independent schools by this Government’s deeply misguided VAT policy? I have a list of 20 schools in Buckinghamshire with no places whatsoever, and Bristol city council is considering buying places from an independent school to put back in that school, at taxpayers’ expense, a child who recently left that school at the parents’ expense.”
“The hypocrisy of this debate is utterly extraordinary. Everybody agrees that steel is of strategic national importance, yet the obsession with net zero of both main parties, led by the Conservatives, is leading to the removal of our blast furnaces by both British Steel and Tata. That obsession is killing our steel industry and steel jobs, and leading to our inability to produce primary steel. Over 75% of all new steel generating capacity in the world is in Asia, and over 90% of that is produced in blast furnaces. Our obsession with net zero—”
“Given the obsession with net zero, will the Minister guarantee that if Tata is subsidised with more than £500 million to produce new electric arc furnaces, the money will be linked to the construction as opposed to Tata taking the money early and then not building the furnaces?”
“Of course, the Secretary of State passionately believes that renewable energy will be cheaper, so he should have no problem at all with inserting into the conditions for investment a requirement for confirmation that within the business plan for investments there is a clear goal for the investment to result in cheaper energy for British consumers and taxpayers. I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to adopt that 50% restriction and consider the need for private sector investment.”
“I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister, when they make investments through GB Energy, to focus almost exclusively on 50:50 joint ventures in which the other 50% should be private sector investment, preferably from British pension funds on behalf of British pensioners. That way we will get the best of all worlds, with the quality of private sector management, because the truth is that Governments can be good at funding things but are generally very bad at managing things. I therefore urge the Secretary of State and the Minister, when they consider the investments to be made through GB Energy, to adopt the model of investing only up to 50% and always ensuring that there is private sector investment alongside.”
“Indeed, it may be that the Secretary of State was listening to me a couple of years ago when I talked about this issue. In the spirit of being constructive and helpful to the Minister and the Secretary of State, I wish to put forward a couple of suggestions. My model of joint-venture partial public ownership of monopoly, critical public utilities is a 50:50 model. In opening the debate, the Secretary of State referred to the Danish company Ørsted, which is 50% owned by the state and 50% owned primarily by pension funds with private sector management. That is a win-win joint venture.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) on that excellent speech. The vision of a landlord with a sword serving alcohol is an interesting one. I also congratulate the others who have made maiden speeches, and in particular the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader). Northampton South is where I grew up and first went to school, and I am still a passionate supporter of the Northampton Saints. I have long been a critic of the excessive levels of overseas ownership of our key public utilities thanks to the failures of the previous Conservative regimes. Some 80% of our offshore wind industry is overseas-owned, so I have some sympathy, the House may be surprised to hear, with some of the aims and ambitions of GB Energy.”
“I therefore support her and say to the Minister that actually the whole of Lincolnshire—north and south—needs extra investment in road and rail infrastructure to secure the growth that the Government are rightly so keen to ensure for the nation.”
“The hon. Member is making an extraordinarily powerful and important point. Lincolnshire has a huge footprint from the north, which she represents, to the south— I would suggest that it is not a corner but a massive footprint. The Government want to create growth and to build 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament. The key to that is infrastructure, because if we do not have a good road network to enable people to get across Lincolnshire and if they cannot get to new homes, the house builders will not build them. In my constituency, we have been talking about a bypass in Boston for about 20 years—so long that no one can remember.”
“Will the Secretary of State, who is obsessed with renewable energy, actually be honest with the British people? The truth is that the offshore wind turbine bids today are some 20% above current prices. The floating offshore wind bids are some three times the current prices. His Department says that this requires subsidies of some £1.5 billion a year. That is before the extra transmission costs, before constraint payments, before compensation payments for blighting my constituents’ countryside, and before the cost of back-up when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Why will he not be honest and tell the truth: that renewable energy is more expensive, not cheaper?”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are hearing a lot about transparency, accountability and scrutiny, but the business of the day, proposed by the Leader of the House, includes a plan to abolish the European Scrutiny Committee. When this country voted to leave the European Union, we voted to take back control. How can we scrutinise the Government’s activities and negotiations with the European Union if the Government abolish the European Scrutiny Committee? Surely that is completely in contrast to what the Government proposed in their manifesto, and to these discussions about scrutiny.”
“I suggest to the Leader of the House, the Government and the Whips that we need to reflect on that. I urge the Leader of the House to withdraw the motion, reflect on it from the sedentary position of our sunbeds over the next month and bring it back to the House in September.”
“I find that extraordinary. We have heard from the Government before the election, during the election and since the election about the importance of our relations with our friends in the European Union and how negotiations may take place on a whole raft of important issues. Do hon. Members remember the slogan, “Take back control of our borders, our money and our laws”? Surely the whole point of our debate about our relationship with the European Union is that this is the place where we debate and legislate for laws on behalf of the people, so if we are to take back control of our laws, surely those laws and the negotiations proposed by the Government on behalf of the people should be scrutinised in detail and earnest, as has been proposed all afternoon with regard to other matters.”
“It is important to have a debate on this motion. We have heard all afternoon splendid speeches and maiden speeches, have we not? But the thrust of this afternoon has been scrutiny, accountability and responsibility. It seems extraordinary to me that while the other House has a Committee to scrutinise our relations with the European Union—indeed, today it has proudly announced that it has been reformed—and the Government want to reform the House of Lords, we could have a situation in which there is only a Committee to scrutinise relations with the European Union in the other place. We have talked about scrutiny all afternoon. Of the 27 Committees referred to on the Order Paper, the European Scrutiny Committee is the only one that includes the word “scrutiny”, yet it is the one Committee that the Leader of the House wants to do away with.”
“I thank the hon. Lady for her constructive and positive contribution. The reality is that it is incumbent on us, on behalf of millions of people who believe in democracy in this country and wanted to take back control, to scrutinise the negotiations that the newly elected Government will have in multiple areas with the European Union in Brussels and the European nations. It seems extraordinary to take away the ability to look at that in detail—I am not sure how millions of people will understand it.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for his most helpful contribution. He reinforced the point: where is the scrutiny that our citizens rely on us all to exercise on the Government? However well intentioned the Government’s negotiations are, we have a role to play to avoid unintended consequences. It is splendid that the other place has its own scrutiny Committee— [ Interruption. ] I have not been invited over there. I reinforce the point that this is the democratically elected House. We are charged with scrutinising the Government’s negotiations with partners all around the world. It is incumbent on the Leader of the House and the Government to continue the European Scrutiny Committee, which has done good work and is surely best placed to continue that focus.”
“I thank the hon. Member for that most helpful contribution, which reinforces the value of the Committee, its focus and its determination to get the laws right for our millions of citizens. I therefore urge the Leader of the House, again, to withdraw the motion and to reflect on these contributions. Let us come back in September, have a debate on it and find the right way to proceed. The motion should be withdrawn.”
“Does the Home Secretary agree that it is shocking when there is violence against female emergency workers? How committed is she to ensuring that perpetrators face the full weight of the law?”
“My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has just made a very good case, and has asked you a specific question: is it fair? From your lack of reply, I think it is implicit that you agree that it is not fair. You have it in your power to change that, as a matter of fairness and of listening to smaller parties. If you do not agree with that, I think constituents all over the country will find it absolutely astonishing.”
“May I congratulate the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and others on their excellent maiden speeches? It is a great honour to represent Boston and Skegness, which I believe is the most fertile constituency in the country. I refer of course to the productivity of the amazing agricultural farmland in the constituency. At the heart of it is Batemans Brewery, a fantastic family brewery launched in 1874.”
“They said, “We’re here to claim benefits—your health benefits and housing benefits. We would prefer it in Bulgaria, but we want to take your benefits and then send the money home.” That is what is going on up and down the country, and it is completely unacceptable. [ Interruption. ] There is muttering—the truth hurts. The establishment do not want to talk about this, do they?”
“The implication is most seriously felt by women who work in the town centre, who feel unsafe leaving their place of work, and by constituents who do not want to go into the centre of this great market town at night because they fear, frankly, that it is not safe. When they go there at night, there is no chance of seeing any police whatsoever—I have been there on a number of occasions. What those people will see is drug dealers in the centre of the marketplace, plying their hideous, vile trade night in and night out. That is completely unacceptable. During the election campaign, I went to numerous houses; for example, there was one where seven people were living in a house with two bedrooms. It was a Bulgarian family, and only one member of that family spoke any English at all.”
“They have got nothing to do, and they have been aided and abetted in coming to the UK by false promises made by morally bankrupt businesses, which are helping them to get national insurance numbers for overseas persons under a scheme that we thought had closed. We thought the EU settlement scheme had closed, but it turns out that it has not. If someone fibs about how much time they have spent here before 2020, they can still apply, so many are still arriving, and they are not integrating. They are not learning the language, and regrettably, it creates an intimidating atmosphere in the centre of the town—I know this goes on elsewhere.”
“It was about controlling immigration and having smart immigration—working, integrating and speaking the language—which we should all agree is a great thing. Instead, the previous Government opened the doors to mass immigration, with significant consequences for towns such as Boston and other towns up and down the country. I will give Members an example. Every morning in the centre of Boston, dozens and dozens of east Europeans arrive in the marketplace with nothing to do. They have been hoofed out of the houses in multiple occupation where they are hot-bedding—two or three shifts a day on the same mattresses—because of mass, uncontrolled immigration.”
“Thousands of homes have been flooded, and with a failure to properly maintain sea level defences, tens of thousands of homes are at risk, again because of bureaucracy and inertia. Another reason why my constituents are really quite grumpy is that the stupid net zero policies will result in hundreds of massive, ugly pylons blighting the environment and countryside of my constituency, as well as solar farms planned on incredibly productive agricultural farmland. It is absolute idiocy. Then, of course, there is another big issue that is making my constituents very grumpy indeed. One of the slogans for leaving the European Union was to take back control. The previous Government promised it; do you remember that slogan? It was about money, laws and borders—yes, borders.”