Westminster Hall
Monday 6th July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 months ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:30
16:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, doctor. It's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair. I beg to move that this House has considered. E-petition 759385 relating to disqualification from election candidacy for terrorism convictions. I begin by thanking Richard Donaldson for creating this petition. And the more than 200,000 people across the United Kingdom who have signed it. I also thank the 205 people from my constituency of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk who have added their names. As members will know, my role today is to introduce the petition and to facilitate this debate.
However, having considered the evidence before us and having spoken with the petition creator, I believe he raises an important point that Parliament should not dismiss. At its heart, this debate asks a simple question should someone who has been convicted of terrorism offences be entitled, entitled to seek public office?For me, the answer is no. Not because I reject the principle of rehabilitation, not because I believe people cannot change, but because holding elected office is not an automatic right. It is a privilege.
It is a privilege bestowed by the public. And with that privilege comes an expectation that those who seek to represent our communities demonstrate respect for the democratic institutions they wish to serve. Those people, the current law simply does not pass the common sense test. We already prevent certain people from standing for elected office. Individuals may be disqualified because they are subject to certain bankruptcy restrictions. Others are disqualified because of corrupt electoral practices. Certain sexual offences, notification requirements or offences involving intimidation of candidates.
Yet someone with a historic terrorism conviction may still be entitled to stand for election. Many members of the public struggle to understand that distinction. Terrorism is not an ordinary crime. It is an attack on democracy itself. It seeks to replace political debate with violence. It seeks to intimidate governments, writing communities and undermine the rule of law. That is why Parliament has consistently recognised terrorism as different. We have unique counter-terrorism powers, unique sentencing provisions, unique monitoring arrangements following release from prison.
We recognise that terrorism is fundamentally different because it is directed against the democratic values upon which this country is built. If we accept that principle elsewhere in our law, and I believe we should, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether those convicted of terrorism offences should be permitted to hold Democratic office every day. Way.
However, having considered the evidence before us and having spoken with the petition creator, I believe he raises an important point that Parliament should not dismiss. At its heart, this debate asks a simple question should someone who has been convicted of terrorism offences be entitled, entitled to seek public office?For me, the answer is no. Not because I reject the principle of rehabilitation, not because I believe people cannot change, but because holding elected office is not an automatic right. It is a privilege.
It is a privilege bestowed by the public. And with that privilege comes an expectation that those who seek to represent our communities demonstrate respect for the democratic institutions they wish to serve. Those people, the current law simply does not pass the common sense test. We already prevent certain people from standing for elected office. Individuals may be disqualified because they are subject to certain bankruptcy restrictions. Others are disqualified because of corrupt electoral practices. Certain sexual offences, notification requirements or offences involving intimidation of candidates.
Yet someone with a historic terrorism conviction may still be entitled to stand for election. Many members of the public struggle to understand that distinction. Terrorism is not an ordinary crime. It is an attack on democracy itself. It seeks to replace political debate with violence. It seeks to intimidate governments, writing communities and undermine the rule of law. That is why Parliament has consistently recognised terrorism as different. We have unique counter-terrorism powers, unique sentencing provisions, unique monitoring arrangements following release from prison.
We recognise that terrorism is fundamentally different because it is directed against the democratic values upon which this country is built. If we accept that principle elsewhere in our law, and I believe we should, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether those convicted of terrorism offences should be permitted to hold Democratic office every day. Way.
16:33
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I am grateful to the member for giving way, Shahid, but is a convicted terrorist. He was convicted of attempting to blow up the British consulate in Yemen, an Anglican church and a hotel. This vile individual, frankly, should never have been allowed into the UK, let alone be able to stand for Parliament, for the local council. It makes an absolute joke of our democracy and I strongly support the idea of changing the law so that this can never happen again in the future. But would my hon.
Friend agree that what should terrify us more than anything else in his case is that 452 people who have the vote voted for him, voted for a convicted terrorist to represent them in the City Hall in Birmingham. That is what should keep us awake at night.
Friend agree that what should terrify us more than anything else in his case is that 452 people who have the vote voted for him, voted for a convicted terrorist to represent them in the City Hall in Birmingham. That is what should keep us awake at night.
16:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for making that point. I will come on to that individual's case shortly, but I do share his concerns. Indeed, there was cross-party concerns at the time of that individual's candidacy. Both Labour and Conservative politicians expressed concerns about that. As I say, we will move on to that later in my speech. Um, yes.
16:34
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'm grateful for that point. Of course, that is accurate, but the fact that anybody would want to vote for a convicted terrorism does raise serious questions, which I think we should be concerned about. About Doctor Allin-khan. Every day we walk through this palace, reminded of the human cost of terrorism. Within these walls are memorials to members of Parliament murdered in terrorist attacks, including Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Their lives were taken because they believed in democracy.
Those memorials serve as a permanent reminder that terrorism is not simply another criminal offence. It is an attack on democratic life itself. Nor should we forget that many other victims of terrorism across our country, from Lockerbie to the 7th July bombings, from the Manchester Arena attack to the attack here at Westminster in 2017, terrorism has left deep scars on communities throughout the United Kingdom. Attacks were intended not simply to kill innocent people, but to undermine our confidence in democracy and the rule of law.
The petition before us raises arises because many members of the public were surprised to discover that under our current law, someone convicted of terrorism offences in certain circumstances could stand for elected office, historic convictions, even for very serious offences, may not prevent someone from standing. Indeed, candidates largely self-certify that they are eligible, with returning officers having only limited powers to determine whether someone is disqualified. The government's response to the petition states that there are currently no plans to change those rules. I hope today's debate will persuade the minister to think again as.
We have heard already from the honourable member from New York. The immediate catalyst for this petition was the case of. But who stood as a candidate in Birmingham during this year's local elections. It is a matter of public record that he was convicted in Yemen in 1999 of involvement in a terrorist bombing plot targeted among other sites, the British consulate and sentenced to five years imprisonment. Mr.. But has consistently maintained that he was wrongly convicted and that his confession was obtained through torture.
Those claims have been reported widely. Now, members may hold differing views about that individual case, but today's debate is about something much broader than the one individual. It's about whether our electoral law contains an obvious gap that should now be addressed. There is also a practical consideration that deserves attention. If someone convicted of terrorism offences were elected to this House, the parliamentary authorities would have little choice but to issue them with a parliamentary security pass, allowing routine access to much of the parliamentary estate.
Often focus on ourselves, but this is also about the thousands of people who work here every day. Our staff clerks, police officers, security personnel, cleaners, caterers and many others. They deserve to know that Parliament takes their safety seriously. They deserve to know that Parliament takes their safety seriously. Some will argue that once someone has served their sentence, they should once again enjoy the full rights of citizenship. Now, that's an important principle. But society already accepts that certain positions carry additional responsibilities and require higher standards.
Serving in Parliament, serving in a devolved legislature, or serving on a local council is different from ordinary employment. These are positions of public trust. The public are entitled to expect exceptionally high standards from those who seek them. This debate is therefore not about preventing rehabilitation. It's not about denying someone the opportunity to rebuild their lives. It is about denying who this is about deciding who should exercise democratic authority on behalf of others. Those are not the same things.
Now, others may point to Northern Ireland and the peace process. I think it's important that we approach that history carefully and respectfully. The Good Friday Agreement transformed Northern Ireland and brought to an end decades of violence. Nothing I say today should diminish that achievement. Indeed, we should rightly distinguish between those convicted of terrorism offences and figures such as Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, neither of whom was convicted of terrorism offences. Today's petition concerns something much narrower. It concerns people who have been convicted of terrorism offences.
That distinction matters. It is also worth noting that concern about this issue is not confined to one political party. As I said earlier, following the Birmingham case, both Labour and Conservative members publicly expressed concern that someone convicted of terrorism offences could stand for election. Victims of terrorism who question such. Whether such individuals should be eligible to represent the public in a democracy. This should not be a partisan issue. It should be about maintaining public confidence in our democratic institutions.
Democracy depends not only upon free elections, but upon public confidence in those elected. If the public lose confidence that Parliament is capable of drawing sensible lines about who is fit to hold elected office, that confidence is weakened. Parliament should never be afraid to legislate. Where the public can plainly see that the law no longer reflects common sense. I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State for defence recently acknowledge that the government is considering this issue through the Defending Democracy Task Force.
That is welcome, but today's debate gives members an opportunity to go further. The obvious question is what should change?The petition proposes a straightforward legal disqualification preventing those convicted of terrorism offences from standing for elected office. The detail would require careful consideration. There would undoubtedly need to be safeguards where overseas convictions were concerned, ensuring that politically motivated convictions handed down by regimes without independent judicial systems are not automatically recognised. Those are important drafting questions, but they are not reasons for doing nothing.
They are reasons for careful legislation. The principle is clear those convicted of terrorism offences should not be entrusted with elected office. Our democracy is one of Britain's greatest achievements. We rightly welcome robust political disagreement. We encourage free speech. We welcome vigorous political campaigning. But democracy also has the right and indeed the responsibility to defend itself against those who have sought to destroy it through violence. That is not intolerance. It is common sense.
It is resilience. It is about protecting the integrity of our democratic institutions. I therefore conclude, Doctor Alan Kahn, by once again thanking Richard Donaldson for bringing this matter before Parliament. Petitions such as this demonstrate democracy. Petitions such as this demonstrate democracy working as it should. A member of the public identified what he believed to be a gap in our law. More than 200,000 people agreed. Today, Parliament has the opportunity to consider whether that gap should now be closed.
For my part, I believe it should. I hope the Minister will move beyond acknowledging the issue and commit the government to examining legislative options that are proportionate, workable and robust. Those who seek to destroy our democracy should not be able to exploit it.
Those memorials serve as a permanent reminder that terrorism is not simply another criminal offence. It is an attack on democratic life itself. Nor should we forget that many other victims of terrorism across our country, from Lockerbie to the 7th July bombings, from the Manchester Arena attack to the attack here at Westminster in 2017, terrorism has left deep scars on communities throughout the United Kingdom. Attacks were intended not simply to kill innocent people, but to undermine our confidence in democracy and the rule of law.
The petition before us raises arises because many members of the public were surprised to discover that under our current law, someone convicted of terrorism offences in certain circumstances could stand for elected office, historic convictions, even for very serious offences, may not prevent someone from standing. Indeed, candidates largely self-certify that they are eligible, with returning officers having only limited powers to determine whether someone is disqualified. The government's response to the petition states that there are currently no plans to change those rules. I hope today's debate will persuade the minister to think again as.
We have heard already from the honourable member from New York. The immediate catalyst for this petition was the case of. But who stood as a candidate in Birmingham during this year's local elections. It is a matter of public record that he was convicted in Yemen in 1999 of involvement in a terrorist bombing plot targeted among other sites, the British consulate and sentenced to five years imprisonment. Mr.. But has consistently maintained that he was wrongly convicted and that his confession was obtained through torture.
Those claims have been reported widely. Now, members may hold differing views about that individual case, but today's debate is about something much broader than the one individual. It's about whether our electoral law contains an obvious gap that should now be addressed. There is also a practical consideration that deserves attention. If someone convicted of terrorism offences were elected to this House, the parliamentary authorities would have little choice but to issue them with a parliamentary security pass, allowing routine access to much of the parliamentary estate.
Often focus on ourselves, but this is also about the thousands of people who work here every day. Our staff clerks, police officers, security personnel, cleaners, caterers and many others. They deserve to know that Parliament takes their safety seriously. They deserve to know that Parliament takes their safety seriously. Some will argue that once someone has served their sentence, they should once again enjoy the full rights of citizenship. Now, that's an important principle. But society already accepts that certain positions carry additional responsibilities and require higher standards.
Serving in Parliament, serving in a devolved legislature, or serving on a local council is different from ordinary employment. These are positions of public trust. The public are entitled to expect exceptionally high standards from those who seek them. This debate is therefore not about preventing rehabilitation. It's not about denying someone the opportunity to rebuild their lives. It is about denying who this is about deciding who should exercise democratic authority on behalf of others. Those are not the same things.
Now, others may point to Northern Ireland and the peace process. I think it's important that we approach that history carefully and respectfully. The Good Friday Agreement transformed Northern Ireland and brought to an end decades of violence. Nothing I say today should diminish that achievement. Indeed, we should rightly distinguish between those convicted of terrorism offences and figures such as Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, neither of whom was convicted of terrorism offences. Today's petition concerns something much narrower. It concerns people who have been convicted of terrorism offences.
That distinction matters. It is also worth noting that concern about this issue is not confined to one political party. As I said earlier, following the Birmingham case, both Labour and Conservative members publicly expressed concern that someone convicted of terrorism offences could stand for election. Victims of terrorism who question such. Whether such individuals should be eligible to represent the public in a democracy. This should not be a partisan issue. It should be about maintaining public confidence in our democratic institutions.
Democracy depends not only upon free elections, but upon public confidence in those elected. If the public lose confidence that Parliament is capable of drawing sensible lines about who is fit to hold elected office, that confidence is weakened. Parliament should never be afraid to legislate. Where the public can plainly see that the law no longer reflects common sense. I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State for defence recently acknowledge that the government is considering this issue through the Defending Democracy Task Force.
That is welcome, but today's debate gives members an opportunity to go further. The obvious question is what should change?The petition proposes a straightforward legal disqualification preventing those convicted of terrorism offences from standing for elected office. The detail would require careful consideration. There would undoubtedly need to be safeguards where overseas convictions were concerned, ensuring that politically motivated convictions handed down by regimes without independent judicial systems are not automatically recognised. Those are important drafting questions, but they are not reasons for doing nothing.
They are reasons for careful legislation. The principle is clear those convicted of terrorism offences should not be entrusted with elected office. Our democracy is one of Britain's greatest achievements. We rightly welcome robust political disagreement. We encourage free speech. We welcome vigorous political campaigning. But democracy also has the right and indeed the responsibility to defend itself against those who have sought to destroy it through violence. That is not intolerance. It is common sense.
It is resilience. It is about protecting the integrity of our democratic institutions. I therefore conclude, Doctor Alan Kahn, by once again thanking Richard Donaldson for bringing this matter before Parliament. Petitions such as this demonstrate democracy. Petitions such as this demonstrate democracy working as it should. A member of the public identified what he believed to be a gap in our law. More than 200,000 people agreed. Today, Parliament has the opportunity to consider whether that gap should now be closed.
For my part, I believe it should. I hope the Minister will move beyond acknowledging the issue and commit the government to examining legislative options that are proportionate, workable and robust. Those who seek to destroy our democracy should not be able to exploit it.
16:43
16:43
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. And I'd also like to congratulate the honourable member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk on the thoughtful and able way in which he introduced this important debate. I would also like to thank the 583 Birmingham Northfield constituents who took the time to sign the petition. This petition raises important questions about democratic participation and the potential abuse of our political systems, and it is right that we are debating it today. I understand and share the sentiment behind the petition.
Most people would hold the view that terrorists should not hold elected elected office, and certainly should not hold positions of executive or authority. There is, I think, also a valid question to be asked about the effective five year prohibition against standing for election. That applies in practice for domestic convictions of terrorism, but not for overseas convictions. Those convictions overseas are not always straightforward, as has already been acknowledged, and I'm sure we will come back to that point during this debate. Now, it has been said that there are important matters of detail to work through, one of which is that the petition calls for people to hold, who hold such a conviction to be barred from standing for public office, but it would not, as drafted, debar appointments to the House of Lords or to senior civil service positions.
I do not want to spend long on this point, because I suspect it is a drafting issue, but honourable members will recall when a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party was appointed to the other place a few years ago, an organisation which acted as an apologist for the IRA's mainland bombing campaign and who has never disavowed those views. A particularly important point for colleagues in Warrington and for all those affected by the Birmingham pub bombings. We must also be mindful of the precedent set by the peace process in Northern Ireland.
One of the aims of the Good Friday Agreement was to permit people to move from physical force, republicanism and physical force loyalism to democratic participation, and that peace was built on the primacy of the ballot box. And I'm sure it has not the desire or intention of a petition as drafters to undo any part of that settlement. Honourable member, I will happily give way.
Most people would hold the view that terrorists should not hold elected elected office, and certainly should not hold positions of executive or authority. There is, I think, also a valid question to be asked about the effective five year prohibition against standing for election. That applies in practice for domestic convictions of terrorism, but not for overseas convictions. Those convictions overseas are not always straightforward, as has already been acknowledged, and I'm sure we will come back to that point during this debate. Now, it has been said that there are important matters of detail to work through, one of which is that the petition calls for people to hold, who hold such a conviction to be barred from standing for public office, but it would not, as drafted, debar appointments to the House of Lords or to senior civil service positions.
I do not want to spend long on this point, because I suspect it is a drafting issue, but honourable members will recall when a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party was appointed to the other place a few years ago, an organisation which acted as an apologist for the IRA's mainland bombing campaign and who has never disavowed those views. A particularly important point for colleagues in Warrington and for all those affected by the Birmingham pub bombings. We must also be mindful of the precedent set by the peace process in Northern Ireland.
One of the aims of the Good Friday Agreement was to permit people to move from physical force, republicanism and physical force loyalism to democratic participation, and that peace was built on the primacy of the ballot box. And I'm sure it has not the desire or intention of a petition as drafters to undo any part of that settlement. Honourable member, I will happily give way.
16:45
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
The member is correct about what was the purpose of the Belfast Agreement in that regard. Does it then come as a surprise to him that those who were elected former terrorists continue to this very day to glorify their acts of terrorism and regularly celebrate those acts of terrorism?Surely that is not compatible with having turned your back on terrorism.
16:45
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank him for his intervention. I think I made it clear already in my remarks in respect of other representatives. So I hold no truck at all with apologies or glorification of terrorism. There is one more problem, and it has already been touched on in this debate, because the petition seeks to disbar all those who hold overseas convictions of terrorism from public office. It could, if drafted in, without the greatest of care and precision, effectively allow foreign governments to determine who could stand for election in the United Kingdom.
And we know that authoritarian regimes routinely misuse terrorism laws against political opponents and democracy activists. We can take the example of Russia, about which the UN special rapporteurs have said that the Russian government deploys a repressive toolbox targeting civil society, a key part of the Russian government's strategy has been to abuse anti-extremism and counter-terrorism provisions by designating civil society organisations as extremist or terrorist, and bringing criminal charges, including extremism and terrorism related charges against their members or anyone associated with them, including victims of human rights violations. And I think we only need to think in a related area about parliamentary colleagues who have been sanctioned by regimes over Seas because of comments that they have made in this place.
Doctor Allin-khan, critics of a full scale invasion of Ukraine are now routinely labelled as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. We cannot create the prospect of British citizens being tried in absentia by states they may never have stepped foot in, and then been effectively barred from running for council or parliamentary positions. And however well intentioned the aim, we cannot hand Vladimir Putin a veto over our political representation or indeed any other aspect of British public life. I think it is helpful to return to the case that led to the petition, that of an independent candidate in Birmingham, the city part of which I am proud to represent.
And while I do not seek to tar all with the same brush, Birmingham had no shortage this year of independent candidates who preach messages of division and who seem to enjoy bringing a circus of national and international media attention down on parts of the city. We even had candidates who took their direction from or coordinated with George Galloway, a man who used to make a pulpit out of the Russian and Iranian state broadcasters and now who apparently lives in Russia. In Sparkhill, one of the independent candidates, as a man called Shahid.
But. Mr.. But has already been noted, holds a Yemeni terrorism conviction dating back to 19981999. And we can also look to more recent events to see why Mr. Bus would be utterly unfit to be a community representative or elected politician. Before the planned Aston Villa match against Maccabi Tel Aviv. He said this on social media and I have seen the original. It is not taken out of context. If someone comes into your face, you knock his teeth out.
That's my message and the point. I think it's worth closing on is this while it is right that we debate these important proposals, the people of Sparkhill did reject his candidature. He lost decisively and two Labour councillors were returned. We needed, in this case, good organisation and trust in the people of this country. And as I conclude, I hope that the honourable member for Birmingham Hall, Green and Moseley, who represents that area, would forgive some comments about that part of his constituency.
Much has been said in the national press about Sparkhill, egged on by inflammatory comments made two years ago by a former member of this place who should have known better and my mum was born on Evelyn Road in Sparkhill, and I do feel a certain defensiveness when the area and any other part of Birmingham is used as a national political football. Many of us are fed up and I am fed up of the national and social media tourists who think that they can use Birmingham as a passing canvas to propagate stereotypes to cheap clicks, and who give the oxygen of publicity to unrepresentative ideologues and self-obsessed narcissists who crave that attention.
I am very glad that this year in Sparkhill there, politics was defeated. Thank you, Doctor Allin-khan.
And we know that authoritarian regimes routinely misuse terrorism laws against political opponents and democracy activists. We can take the example of Russia, about which the UN special rapporteurs have said that the Russian government deploys a repressive toolbox targeting civil society, a key part of the Russian government's strategy has been to abuse anti-extremism and counter-terrorism provisions by designating civil society organisations as extremist or terrorist, and bringing criminal charges, including extremism and terrorism related charges against their members or anyone associated with them, including victims of human rights violations. And I think we only need to think in a related area about parliamentary colleagues who have been sanctioned by regimes over Seas because of comments that they have made in this place.
Doctor Allin-khan, critics of a full scale invasion of Ukraine are now routinely labelled as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. We cannot create the prospect of British citizens being tried in absentia by states they may never have stepped foot in, and then been effectively barred from running for council or parliamentary positions. And however well intentioned the aim, we cannot hand Vladimir Putin a veto over our political representation or indeed any other aspect of British public life. I think it is helpful to return to the case that led to the petition, that of an independent candidate in Birmingham, the city part of which I am proud to represent.
And while I do not seek to tar all with the same brush, Birmingham had no shortage this year of independent candidates who preach messages of division and who seem to enjoy bringing a circus of national and international media attention down on parts of the city. We even had candidates who took their direction from or coordinated with George Galloway, a man who used to make a pulpit out of the Russian and Iranian state broadcasters and now who apparently lives in Russia. In Sparkhill, one of the independent candidates, as a man called Shahid.
But. Mr.. But has already been noted, holds a Yemeni terrorism conviction dating back to 19981999. And we can also look to more recent events to see why Mr. Bus would be utterly unfit to be a community representative or elected politician. Before the planned Aston Villa match against Maccabi Tel Aviv. He said this on social media and I have seen the original. It is not taken out of context. If someone comes into your face, you knock his teeth out.
That's my message and the point. I think it's worth closing on is this while it is right that we debate these important proposals, the people of Sparkhill did reject his candidature. He lost decisively and two Labour councillors were returned. We needed, in this case, good organisation and trust in the people of this country. And as I conclude, I hope that the honourable member for Birmingham Hall, Green and Moseley, who represents that area, would forgive some comments about that part of his constituency.
Much has been said in the national press about Sparkhill, egged on by inflammatory comments made two years ago by a former member of this place who should have known better and my mum was born on Evelyn Road in Sparkhill, and I do feel a certain defensiveness when the area and any other part of Birmingham is used as a national political football. Many of us are fed up and I am fed up of the national and social media tourists who think that they can use Birmingham as a passing canvas to propagate stereotypes to cheap clicks, and who give the oxygen of publicity to unrepresentative ideologues and self-obsessed narcissists who crave that attention.
I am very glad that this year in Sparkhill there, politics was defeated. Thank you, Doctor Allin-khan.
16:50
16:50
16:50
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you. And it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I thank my hon. Friend for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk for opening this debate. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, for which I am a member. And I would also like to thank all of those petitioners from across the country who kindly signed this petition and put their name to it, because, put simply, this petition asks whether those convicted of terrorism offences should be permanently barred from standing for elected public office.
And this is a serious question and one that deserves careful consideration by members in this House. But before I go any further, let me be clear that it is my firm belief that we should never be in a situation where someone convicted of terrorism can stand for office in this country. Now, whilst I accept that we cannot always rely on the integrity of some overseas courts, a terrorism conviction is incredibly serious and should impact a person's right to stand for and be elected to public office. Now, there has been, quite rightly, a lot of emphasis in this petition on the specific case of Shaheed, but who, as we have already heard, stood for election to the Sparkhill ward in May of 2026, local elections to Birmingham City Council at a time it was known when Mr.
Burke had previously been sentenced to five years in prison in Yemen for terrorism after being convicted with five other UK nationals of plotting to blow up the British consulate. Amongst other locations. Now, this individual should never have been permitted or allowed to stand for election, and it is worrying, as members, and including my honourable friend for Berkshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, has already raised the fact that it is deeply worrying that individuals within that ward voted for somebody that had previously been convicted of terrorism offences. Now, today's debate is incredibly important because it opens up a much wider conversation around who can and cannot stand for public office.
And I think it is right that we properly scrutinise any convictions that have been awarded from foreign courts. But surely the fact that a conviction has been awarded by a foreign court sparks a level of interest that on that individual and therefore there is a a direction in which I would urge the government to consider tightening up the rules, because the reality of it is, if someone becomes elected, having previously been convicted of terrorism offences, to either this place or to a local authority, they have access not only to represent their ward members or their constituents, but they have access to information.
Public confidence is at risk of being derailed in that individual. And of course, what does it say about democracy in this country when an individual that has previously been convicted of terrorism offences is allowed to stand?So I say simply to the minister that I do not think that the government's response to the petition is anywhere near good enough, because I understand the minister and the government has responded by saying that the government currently has no plans to change the disqualification criteria for those standing for election for these offences, but keeps the counter-terrorism framework under constant review to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
But I would gently say to the minister the current scenario is not fit for purpose. If someone like Mr. Book was able to stand for election in the May 2026 Birmingham City Council elections, and therefore I would simply finish by asking the minister, what will the government be doing based on the level of concerns that we have raised in this debate, to tighten up the provisions to deal with what the petitioner is ultimately asking for here?
And this is a serious question and one that deserves careful consideration by members in this House. But before I go any further, let me be clear that it is my firm belief that we should never be in a situation where someone convicted of terrorism can stand for office in this country. Now, whilst I accept that we cannot always rely on the integrity of some overseas courts, a terrorism conviction is incredibly serious and should impact a person's right to stand for and be elected to public office. Now, there has been, quite rightly, a lot of emphasis in this petition on the specific case of Shaheed, but who, as we have already heard, stood for election to the Sparkhill ward in May of 2026, local elections to Birmingham City Council at a time it was known when Mr.
Burke had previously been sentenced to five years in prison in Yemen for terrorism after being convicted with five other UK nationals of plotting to blow up the British consulate. Amongst other locations. Now, this individual should never have been permitted or allowed to stand for election, and it is worrying, as members, and including my honourable friend for Berkshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, has already raised the fact that it is deeply worrying that individuals within that ward voted for somebody that had previously been convicted of terrorism offences. Now, today's debate is incredibly important because it opens up a much wider conversation around who can and cannot stand for public office.
And I think it is right that we properly scrutinise any convictions that have been awarded from foreign courts. But surely the fact that a conviction has been awarded by a foreign court sparks a level of interest that on that individual and therefore there is a a direction in which I would urge the government to consider tightening up the rules, because the reality of it is, if someone becomes elected, having previously been convicted of terrorism offences, to either this place or to a local authority, they have access not only to represent their ward members or their constituents, but they have access to information.
Public confidence is at risk of being derailed in that individual. And of course, what does it say about democracy in this country when an individual that has previously been convicted of terrorism offences is allowed to stand?So I say simply to the minister that I do not think that the government's response to the petition is anywhere near good enough, because I understand the minister and the government has responded by saying that the government currently has no plans to change the disqualification criteria for those standing for election for these offences, but keeps the counter-terrorism framework under constant review to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
But I would gently say to the minister the current scenario is not fit for purpose. If someone like Mr. Book was able to stand for election in the May 2026 Birmingham City Council elections, and therefore I would simply finish by asking the minister, what will the government be doing based on the level of concerns that we have raised in this debate, to tighten up the provisions to deal with what the petitioner is ultimately asking for here?
16:54
16:54
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Is a pleasure to serve. I want to begin by commending the petitioners who brought this important issue that we are debating today. I certainly endorse with the spirit and the letter of what that petition says. But the first and important point I want to make is this, that if the government were ever to act as they should on this matter, then they must act on a UK wide basis. I say that as someone who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, where too often we have had applied a double standard and we could not, should not, must not have a double standard.
On the issue of terrorists being allowed to be elected in one part of the United Kingdom, but not in another. And I say that from the sad experience of Northern Ireland. We have had a gallery of serious terrorist convicts elected not just to the Northern Ireland Assembly, not just to this House, though they don't take their seats, but get all the expenses that the rest of us get. But some of them have gone on to hold governmental office in Northern Ireland. I think of some of the more notorious ones.
I think of the Old Bailey bomber, Gerry Kelly, who came to this city to bomb the Old Bailey. A man died, Gerry Kelly, in due course, was convicted and put where he ought to have been in prison. He then escaped from prison and shot a prison officer in the head. In the course of that escape. He then was able to stand for and be elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and more than that, he was able to become a junior minister to the First Minister of Northern Ireland.
And more than that, he was. And to this day is a member of the Policing Board of Northern Ireland. Think of the absurdity of that. An Old Bailey bomber, sitting in judgment on a police service on the Policing Board of Northern Ireland. So I make the point that the government ever acts as it should, and it must be in action across this United Kingdom to prevent all with terrorist convictions, taking office. And of course, Kelly is not alone.
There are many more. Conor Murphy, man who served, who was elected to this House, never served in this House because she refused to take their seats, but got all the expenses of this house. A man who had been a convicted. Of possession of explosives and given a five year sentence, a man who still has unanswered questions about his knowledge in the murder of young Paul Quinn in South Armagh. A man, once an MP. Then a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and then a minister in the Northern Ireland Executive.
That's what happens when you do not fetter the rights of those who have taken up the bomb and the gun, and allowed them to abuse the democratic process. Think of another continuing member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Patty Sheehan, got 24 years for attempted booby trap. Still serves as an elected representative, Paul Butler, murderer of a policeman. The Principal Deputy Speaker today of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Colonel Cohen is a convicted terrorist convicted for a booby trap attack on a police station. And many more besides.
That illustrates what happens when you don't address an issue like this. But there are two abiding lessons from the experience of Northern Ireland, and I must correct the member for Berwick in saying that Martin McGuinness had no convictions. Martin McGuinness was convicted twice by the Dublin Criminal Court of membership of the IRA and that is a terrorist offence. And yet, he went on to become deputy first Minister of Northern Ireland. There are two abiding consequences of allowing terrorists to be elevated to elected office, and the first is it sanitises the very acts of terrorism.
And that is something which then they are given an opportunity, as I said in my intervention to the honourable member, we have a situation in Northern Ireland where regularly, weekend after weekend, elected representatives glorify acts of terrorism, salute the bravery, so-called of those who were what they call freedom fighters and what the rest of us call vile terrorists. And to this very day, for example, the First Minister will regularly salute the memory of terrorists and she. Does that from a position of elected office and been able to do it from a position of elected office elevates, Sanitises justifies the very acts of those terrorists.
And that is a fallout of allowing terrorists to be elected to public office. The second and chilling, abiding consequence of allowing terrorists to be elected is it sends a very dangerous message to the next generation of people who might be tempted to tamper and get involved in terrorism, because what did they see?They see the previous generation of terrorists. That it worked for them. They end up in the highest offices in the land. So it incentivises rather than disincentivizes the pursuit of terrorism.
If a young person misled by dissident Republicans in Northern Ireland looks across a champion benches and sees multiple former terrorists presenting and parading as statespeople as those. Who have attained elected office, what message does it send to those young people?It sends a message that terrorism work for them, so why not for us?They might think, and that is one of the dangers of allowing the elevation of terrorists into elected office, an act of terrorism is that which deliberately sets about taking on the very political system to destroy it by the bomb and the bullet.
And it is wholly incongruous from the definition of terrorism, to then have those terrorists still boasting of their acts of terrorism involved at the highest levels of that. So I do come back to my first point, that if the government is to act in this petition and it should, then it needs to act on a nationwide basis across the United Kingdom. We cannot have one rule for one and another for another. There cannot be any hiding behind what is euphemistically called the peace process in Northern Ireland to justify the elevation of terrorists.
Because peace came in Northern Ireland and they were correct. Some members, not because of the Belfast Agreement, because our gallant security forces defeated the terrorists. And then, sadly, they were able to win the peace again. What they get. So with those thoughts, madam, Chair, I certainly want to strongly support this petition. And salute those who brought it to the House.
On the issue of terrorists being allowed to be elected in one part of the United Kingdom, but not in another. And I say that from the sad experience of Northern Ireland. We have had a gallery of serious terrorist convicts elected not just to the Northern Ireland Assembly, not just to this House, though they don't take their seats, but get all the expenses that the rest of us get. But some of them have gone on to hold governmental office in Northern Ireland. I think of some of the more notorious ones.
I think of the Old Bailey bomber, Gerry Kelly, who came to this city to bomb the Old Bailey. A man died, Gerry Kelly, in due course, was convicted and put where he ought to have been in prison. He then escaped from prison and shot a prison officer in the head. In the course of that escape. He then was able to stand for and be elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and more than that, he was able to become a junior minister to the First Minister of Northern Ireland.
And more than that, he was. And to this day is a member of the Policing Board of Northern Ireland. Think of the absurdity of that. An Old Bailey bomber, sitting in judgment on a police service on the Policing Board of Northern Ireland. So I make the point that the government ever acts as it should, and it must be in action across this United Kingdom to prevent all with terrorist convictions, taking office. And of course, Kelly is not alone.
There are many more. Conor Murphy, man who served, who was elected to this House, never served in this House because she refused to take their seats, but got all the expenses of this house. A man who had been a convicted. Of possession of explosives and given a five year sentence, a man who still has unanswered questions about his knowledge in the murder of young Paul Quinn in South Armagh. A man, once an MP. Then a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and then a minister in the Northern Ireland Executive.
That's what happens when you do not fetter the rights of those who have taken up the bomb and the gun, and allowed them to abuse the democratic process. Think of another continuing member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Patty Sheehan, got 24 years for attempted booby trap. Still serves as an elected representative, Paul Butler, murderer of a policeman. The Principal Deputy Speaker today of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Colonel Cohen is a convicted terrorist convicted for a booby trap attack on a police station. And many more besides.
That illustrates what happens when you don't address an issue like this. But there are two abiding lessons from the experience of Northern Ireland, and I must correct the member for Berwick in saying that Martin McGuinness had no convictions. Martin McGuinness was convicted twice by the Dublin Criminal Court of membership of the IRA and that is a terrorist offence. And yet, he went on to become deputy first Minister of Northern Ireland. There are two abiding consequences of allowing terrorists to be elevated to elected office, and the first is it sanitises the very acts of terrorism.
And that is something which then they are given an opportunity, as I said in my intervention to the honourable member, we have a situation in Northern Ireland where regularly, weekend after weekend, elected representatives glorify acts of terrorism, salute the bravery, so-called of those who were what they call freedom fighters and what the rest of us call vile terrorists. And to this very day, for example, the First Minister will regularly salute the memory of terrorists and she. Does that from a position of elected office and been able to do it from a position of elected office elevates, Sanitises justifies the very acts of those terrorists.
And that is a fallout of allowing terrorists to be elected to public office. The second and chilling, abiding consequence of allowing terrorists to be elected is it sends a very dangerous message to the next generation of people who might be tempted to tamper and get involved in terrorism, because what did they see?They see the previous generation of terrorists. That it worked for them. They end up in the highest offices in the land. So it incentivises rather than disincentivizes the pursuit of terrorism.
If a young person misled by dissident Republicans in Northern Ireland looks across a champion benches and sees multiple former terrorists presenting and parading as statespeople as those. Who have attained elected office, what message does it send to those young people?It sends a message that terrorism work for them, so why not for us?They might think, and that is one of the dangers of allowing the elevation of terrorists into elected office, an act of terrorism is that which deliberately sets about taking on the very political system to destroy it by the bomb and the bullet.
And it is wholly incongruous from the definition of terrorism, to then have those terrorists still boasting of their acts of terrorism involved at the highest levels of that. So I do come back to my first point, that if the government is to act in this petition and it should, then it needs to act on a nationwide basis across the United Kingdom. We cannot have one rule for one and another for another. There cannot be any hiding behind what is euphemistically called the peace process in Northern Ireland to justify the elevation of terrorists.
Because peace came in Northern Ireland and they were correct. Some members, not because of the Belfast Agreement, because our gallant security forces defeated the terrorists. And then, sadly, they were able to win the peace again. What they get. So with those thoughts, madam, Chair, I certainly want to strongly support this petition. And salute those who brought it to the House.
17:03
17:03
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, Doctor Allin-khan. It's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair. And I want to start by thanking the honourable member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk for his opening remarks and also to the petitioners who brought the petition today. Public trust in our democracy is very sadly, at an all time low. Whether it's broken manifesto commitments, resignations or just generally a perceived lack of accountability that has led to a general political disillusion for so many. Every failure of standards, every perception that rules do not apply equally risks further damaging confidence in us as MPs, but also our democratic institutions.
This petition was signed by over 200 thousand people across the country, including 227 of my constituents in Guildford. And it speaks to a question that goes to the heart of our democracy. Who is fit to stand for public office, and how do we protect the institutions that make our democracy work?We Liberal Democrats believe we should be working hard to restore public confidence in our democratic institutions. Those who have sought to undermine this confidence through political violence should face serious consequences. However, I think the question this petition raises is not a simple one.
Those who signed it are asking beyond the question of whether someone convicted of terrorism offences should be able to stand for elected office. I think they're asking whether the system is serious about protecting itself. They're asking whether we understand what public office is for. The UK already disqualifies certain people with criminal convictions from holding elected office. Anyone sentenced to three months or more in prison is barred from serving on an English local authority for five years. Police and Crime Commissioner candidates are disqualified if they've ever been convicted of an imprisonment offence.
MPs serving prison sentences of more than a year are disqualified under the representation of the People Act 1981, so there is already a framework in place. The question is whether it goes far enough for terrorism offences, specifically, we do not think it would be right to bar every person with any historic conviction from ever standing for office. That would be disproportionate, and it would cut against the principle of rehabilitation. But terrorism and national security, security offences are different. They are, by definition, attack attacks on institutions.
That person may later seek to serve, and it is reasonable for Parliament to treat them as a special case. Any new prohibition, though, has to meet two tests. Firstly, it has to comply with the 1998 Human Rights Act. Restrictions on the right to stand for election must be proportionate and subject to legal, proper legal safeguards. That is not a barrier to action, though it is the framework which any workable law will have to fit within. Second, it has to be consistent with the Good Friday Agreement.
The constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland has held peace for a generation, and legislation drafted without regard to it could do real damage. That is a practical consideration, though not a theoretical one, and I hope the Minister will address it today. Directly within those tests, though, there is a clear route forward. The Elections Act 2022 already allows courts to issue disqualification orders, but only for five years. The Liberal Democrats support giving courts the power to issue longer disqualification orders so that people who pose an ongoing threat to our democracy can be barred from public office for as long as that threat lasts.
Currently, the representation of the people Bill is making its way through Parliament. It provides a great opportunity for the government to make changes to our electoral system. And my colleague the honourable member for Hazel Grove, has tabled an amendment which I fully support that would prevent anyone convicted of offences relating to the promotion, incitement or use of political violence from also making donations to political parties. If we agree that people who have used violence against our democracy should not sit in its chambers, we should also agree that they should not be funding the parties that do.
I would ask the minister to look at that amendment seriously at the next stage of the bill. There is a wider point as well, on how nominations are handled. Returning officers currently have to accept nominations at face value. They cannot investigate. They cannot investigate allegations, and they cannot reject a nomination because they think someone might be disqualified. As candidates self declare their eligibility. The system depends on honesty and it's worth the government asking whether that is still fit for purpose.
Tackling extremism also requires more than legal disqualification. It requires the police and prosecutors to have the resources and training to prevent and prosecute hate crimes. It requires protective funding for places of worship, schools and community centers that have been targets of attacks, and it requires all of us in public life to think very carefully about the rhetoric that we use and about the rhetoric that has too often been the precursor to violence. The government currently has no plans to change the existing disqualification criteria, and I hope, having listened to this afternoon's debate, the minister will be willing to go further than that.
Public trust is hard won and easily lost, and this is one of the moments where the government can show that it really does take that trust seriously.
This petition was signed by over 200 thousand people across the country, including 227 of my constituents in Guildford. And it speaks to a question that goes to the heart of our democracy. Who is fit to stand for public office, and how do we protect the institutions that make our democracy work?We Liberal Democrats believe we should be working hard to restore public confidence in our democratic institutions. Those who have sought to undermine this confidence through political violence should face serious consequences. However, I think the question this petition raises is not a simple one.
Those who signed it are asking beyond the question of whether someone convicted of terrorism offences should be able to stand for elected office. I think they're asking whether the system is serious about protecting itself. They're asking whether we understand what public office is for. The UK already disqualifies certain people with criminal convictions from holding elected office. Anyone sentenced to three months or more in prison is barred from serving on an English local authority for five years. Police and Crime Commissioner candidates are disqualified if they've ever been convicted of an imprisonment offence.
MPs serving prison sentences of more than a year are disqualified under the representation of the People Act 1981, so there is already a framework in place. The question is whether it goes far enough for terrorism offences, specifically, we do not think it would be right to bar every person with any historic conviction from ever standing for office. That would be disproportionate, and it would cut against the principle of rehabilitation. But terrorism and national security, security offences are different. They are, by definition, attack attacks on institutions.
That person may later seek to serve, and it is reasonable for Parliament to treat them as a special case. Any new prohibition, though, has to meet two tests. Firstly, it has to comply with the 1998 Human Rights Act. Restrictions on the right to stand for election must be proportionate and subject to legal, proper legal safeguards. That is not a barrier to action, though it is the framework which any workable law will have to fit within. Second, it has to be consistent with the Good Friday Agreement.
The constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland has held peace for a generation, and legislation drafted without regard to it could do real damage. That is a practical consideration, though not a theoretical one, and I hope the Minister will address it today. Directly within those tests, though, there is a clear route forward. The Elections Act 2022 already allows courts to issue disqualification orders, but only for five years. The Liberal Democrats support giving courts the power to issue longer disqualification orders so that people who pose an ongoing threat to our democracy can be barred from public office for as long as that threat lasts.
Currently, the representation of the people Bill is making its way through Parliament. It provides a great opportunity for the government to make changes to our electoral system. And my colleague the honourable member for Hazel Grove, has tabled an amendment which I fully support that would prevent anyone convicted of offences relating to the promotion, incitement or use of political violence from also making donations to political parties. If we agree that people who have used violence against our democracy should not sit in its chambers, we should also agree that they should not be funding the parties that do.
I would ask the minister to look at that amendment seriously at the next stage of the bill. There is a wider point as well, on how nominations are handled. Returning officers currently have to accept nominations at face value. They cannot investigate. They cannot investigate allegations, and they cannot reject a nomination because they think someone might be disqualified. As candidates self declare their eligibility. The system depends on honesty and it's worth the government asking whether that is still fit for purpose.
Tackling extremism also requires more than legal disqualification. It requires the police and prosecutors to have the resources and training to prevent and prosecute hate crimes. It requires protective funding for places of worship, schools and community centers that have been targets of attacks, and it requires all of us in public life to think very carefully about the rhetoric that we use and about the rhetoric that has too often been the precursor to violence. The government currently has no plans to change the existing disqualification criteria, and I hope, having listened to this afternoon's debate, the minister will be willing to go further than that.
Public trust is hard won and easily lost, and this is one of the moments where the government can show that it really does take that trust seriously.
17:08
17:08
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Good afternoon doctor. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. And I also add my congratulations to the member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk for the way in which he introduced the complexity of this debate. Let me briefly start by addressing the issue, which prompted the petition, which we are debating this afternoon. Many of us will have heard councillor Robert Alden, the leader of the conservative group in Birmingham, who called upon voters to help keep the extremists out of Birmingham City Council.
I think we've heard examples from a number of different parties of how, in response to an individual who was very high profile, with a very serious conviction that there was that sense across the political system in that city, that this was not a level of division that they would welcome into local politics. And although there were some voters in the ward who voted for that individual, we know that the community itself exercised what I think most of us would respect as being good judgment. But what it does lead to is that broader question of how, particularly in local elections, where turnout can be extremely low, sometimes as low as 20% at a ward level, where in complicated politics, where there may be sometimes five or more political parties and then a number of independent candidates, we don't see those who wish to bring extremism into politics, using those types of elections as an opportunity to leverage public office as a way of pursuing, pursuing those extremist aims.
And as the member for Keighley and Ilkley set out in his very clear contribution, and I know he is someone who represents a community which has also faced some tensions, which it's had to deal with and which he has led the response to extremely effectively. We need to make sure that our politics, which in our democracy are about how we come together in order to make collectively the best decisions that support our community and our national interest. We don't see people seeking to leverage that political office in order to create division.
Know, Doctor Allin-khan, that this comes at a time when there's a bigger picture of those who are seeking to import disputes from other parts of the world into our politics. All of us as constituency MPs will deal with this on a daily basis. And sometimes those are heartfelt requests for the intervention of the British state. I know I recently met constituents who wanted to talk to me about access to reservoirs and water in Sri Lanka, because they told me that they felt that in their country, people would respect the intervention of the British government, that it would produce a positive impact on something which was directly affecting the lives of their friends, their family and their relations in a community with which they have, as does Britain, very strong connections.
But there are also those who seek to use British politics as a means of pursuing conflict and division. And that clearly is not something that we welcome. And when we consider cases like that of Shahid, but we know that Yemen is a country which has been beset by terrible conflict and violence that cost the lives of many thousands of innocent people. And we do not want to see that conflict being pursued either. In Birmingham, city councils, town hall or in any other part of our politics.
So, Doctor Allin-khan, the challenge for the government, which currently holds the responsibility to address this, is how. We strike the right balance when seeking to draw boundaries around who is eligible for public office in our country, we are a country that respects and cherishes freedom of speech. We support the right to the freedom of religion and the freedom of belief, and we do believe, and it is enshrined in our rules, in this, as in many other things, that there should be a path to redemption and reconciliation for people who break the law or who break the norms of our society.
We need to make sure when this is an increasingly contested space, that we balance that with preserving the integrity of our politics, and whether that is those seeking local office not to benefit the wider community, but because they want to get a decision made in favour of a planning application or a grant from the council, or the sale of a piece of land to the benefit of them and their associates, or those who seek to get elected to this Parliament in order to try and change the policy of the British Government in respect of interventions in conflict, wars and disputes in other countries, none of those things are about the longer term interests of the British people, and particularly when we see the rising tide of anti-Semitism, which most of us will have heard about from our constituents and the Maccabi football team case in Birmingham was a really classic example of that.
We need to make sure that our governance, our ethics locally are free from the taint of extremism wherever it may be found. So as the official opposition, we support the government in seeking to take forward its policies on this area. I think there is an opportunity. I reflect very much on what the member for North Antrim set out in respect of the complex history of Northern Ireland, of how difficult it must be as a member of that community, to find yourself face to face with people who are not only terrorists, but may have been involved in the murder or the harm of your own relatives.
And I've heard about that from Northern Ireland. Politicians personally have told me how it is to sit in a council chamber knowing that somebody there was directly involved in the killing of someone very close to that individual and trying to work out how to put that dispute behind them in order to move forward in the interests of the community. Whilst not disrespecting the memory of those who they love. Of course I'll give way.
I think we've heard examples from a number of different parties of how, in response to an individual who was very high profile, with a very serious conviction that there was that sense across the political system in that city, that this was not a level of division that they would welcome into local politics. And although there were some voters in the ward who voted for that individual, we know that the community itself exercised what I think most of us would respect as being good judgment. But what it does lead to is that broader question of how, particularly in local elections, where turnout can be extremely low, sometimes as low as 20% at a ward level, where in complicated politics, where there may be sometimes five or more political parties and then a number of independent candidates, we don't see those who wish to bring extremism into politics, using those types of elections as an opportunity to leverage public office as a way of pursuing, pursuing those extremist aims.
And as the member for Keighley and Ilkley set out in his very clear contribution, and I know he is someone who represents a community which has also faced some tensions, which it's had to deal with and which he has led the response to extremely effectively. We need to make sure that our politics, which in our democracy are about how we come together in order to make collectively the best decisions that support our community and our national interest. We don't see people seeking to leverage that political office in order to create division.
Know, Doctor Allin-khan, that this comes at a time when there's a bigger picture of those who are seeking to import disputes from other parts of the world into our politics. All of us as constituency MPs will deal with this on a daily basis. And sometimes those are heartfelt requests for the intervention of the British state. I know I recently met constituents who wanted to talk to me about access to reservoirs and water in Sri Lanka, because they told me that they felt that in their country, people would respect the intervention of the British government, that it would produce a positive impact on something which was directly affecting the lives of their friends, their family and their relations in a community with which they have, as does Britain, very strong connections.
But there are also those who seek to use British politics as a means of pursuing conflict and division. And that clearly is not something that we welcome. And when we consider cases like that of Shahid, but we know that Yemen is a country which has been beset by terrible conflict and violence that cost the lives of many thousands of innocent people. And we do not want to see that conflict being pursued either. In Birmingham, city councils, town hall or in any other part of our politics.
So, Doctor Allin-khan, the challenge for the government, which currently holds the responsibility to address this, is how. We strike the right balance when seeking to draw boundaries around who is eligible for public office in our country, we are a country that respects and cherishes freedom of speech. We support the right to the freedom of religion and the freedom of belief, and we do believe, and it is enshrined in our rules, in this, as in many other things, that there should be a path to redemption and reconciliation for people who break the law or who break the norms of our society.
We need to make sure when this is an increasingly contested space, that we balance that with preserving the integrity of our politics, and whether that is those seeking local office not to benefit the wider community, but because they want to get a decision made in favour of a planning application or a grant from the council, or the sale of a piece of land to the benefit of them and their associates, or those who seek to get elected to this Parliament in order to try and change the policy of the British Government in respect of interventions in conflict, wars and disputes in other countries, none of those things are about the longer term interests of the British people, and particularly when we see the rising tide of anti-Semitism, which most of us will have heard about from our constituents and the Maccabi football team case in Birmingham was a really classic example of that.
We need to make sure that our governance, our ethics locally are free from the taint of extremism wherever it may be found. So as the official opposition, we support the government in seeking to take forward its policies on this area. I think there is an opportunity. I reflect very much on what the member for North Antrim set out in respect of the complex history of Northern Ireland, of how difficult it must be as a member of that community, to find yourself face to face with people who are not only terrorists, but may have been involved in the murder or the harm of your own relatives.
And I've heard about that from Northern Ireland. Politicians personally have told me how it is to sit in a council chamber knowing that somebody there was directly involved in the killing of someone very close to that individual and trying to work out how to put that dispute behind them in order to move forward in the interests of the community. Whilst not disrespecting the memory of those who they love. Of course I'll give way.
17:14
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
To the member for giving way. One thing I would add, though, is that it isn't complex insofar as terrorism was always wrong. All communities in Northern Ireland knew that and understood that throughout the troubles. Our job now is to make sure that the rewriting of history that's done in a wholesale basis and as a result of this bill, in terms of the representation of the people that we're trying to take forward, and the debate and the petition today that we make sure that those who continue to endorse terrorism and glorify terrorism are also dealt with.
17:15
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
So I think the member for Lagan Valley has set out very clearly. I think boosted really the point about the complexity of this, because she's absolutely right that we shouldn't see a situation where someone feels that their election to office effectively overrides their obligation to the basic good conduct and due process that we expect of all politicians. The basic respect for human rights, the basic respect for the lives of other people, the basic respect for everything that makes this country strong. And we need to make sure, and I'm sure the minister is going to do that, that the government reflects on the lessons, the long term lessons from Northern Ireland, because this isn't just an issue about what Shahid may have done in Yemen in 1999.
It's about the experience that we have as a country of terrorism, influencing our politics and our communities, and making sure that those lessons are taken into account Communities and making sure that those lessons are taken into account so that we can be better protected for the future. So, doctor. In conclusion, the opposition will support the government in seeking to bring forward whatever policy changes are necessary. Some suggestions have been made in this debate about what that might look like, whether that is a test specifically around convictions for terrorism, whether it may be a test around crimes of violence that would impact on the suitability of someone for public office, how we work with other countries to ensure that convictions abroad are captured through the nominations process, so that we know what people may have been convicted of, and that where we know that we are able to make an effective appraisal of the soundness of that conviction, recognising that a conviction in Russia or a conviction in China may not carry the same weight in the view of our politics as a conviction in France or Germany or Ireland.
So we will pledge to work with the government to seek to address this issue and make sure that all of our communities, for the long term future, can have total confidence in the integrity of our political system.
It's about the experience that we have as a country of terrorism, influencing our politics and our communities, and making sure that those lessons are taken into account Communities and making sure that those lessons are taken into account so that we can be better protected for the future. So, doctor. In conclusion, the opposition will support the government in seeking to bring forward whatever policy changes are necessary. Some suggestions have been made in this debate about what that might look like, whether that is a test specifically around convictions for terrorism, whether it may be a test around crimes of violence that would impact on the suitability of someone for public office, how we work with other countries to ensure that convictions abroad are captured through the nominations process, so that we know what people may have been convicted of, and that where we know that we are able to make an effective appraisal of the soundness of that conviction, recognising that a conviction in Russia or a conviction in China may not carry the same weight in the view of our politics as a conviction in France or Germany or Ireland.
So we will pledge to work with the government to seek to address this issue and make sure that all of our communities, for the long term future, can have total confidence in the integrity of our political system.
17:17
17:17
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you, Doctor Allin-khan, and it is a great pleasure to serve under your Chairship. And I want to thank the honourable member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk for moving the motion and to thank all honourable members who have participated in this debate on an important subject today. And before I begin my contribution, I want to wholly agree with the member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk on what he said regarding terrorism. For all those who bear the scars of political violence, the pain, the trauma, they know that the value of our democracy is not just good government, but it's the right of us all to peace.
And I remain proud every day of the work of my predecessors did in office, to bring about peace on these islands, and I am glad that he has reasserted the value of that peace through this debate today. Democracy depends on public participation, so it's only right and fitting that I acknowledge and thank the more than 200,000 people who signed the petition calling to ban anyone convicted of terrorism offences, from signing from standing for public office. The government recognises the concern that underpins this petition. Public confidence in our democratic institution matters and terrorism represents one of the gravest threats to our society.
As members have said in this chamber today, and while this House clearly understands the threat of terrorism, serious, the question is whether a further electoral disqualification is the right, proportionate and effective response, and how any such change would sit alongside the current and proposed wider legal framework. So what I'll do in my response is set out what the government is doing, but before I do so, I just want, in response to what members have said to repeat the Defense Secretary's words from the recent questions. On the 8th of June in which he said.
That the Defending Democracy Task Force is looking carefully at the issue and. He said in response to the member for Stockton that the government is considering whether further action is required and that he would be happy to work with members on it, and I will make sure that the Defence Secretary sees a copy of the debate that we've had today and, again, extend that offer to members to work with the defending. My teeth back in the Defending Democracy Task Force on these issues, and I thank the opposition spokesperson for his offer.
And to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her interest. And I know that the Defence Secretary will be grateful for the points that they've raised today. It's worth noting the wider context in which this petition has come before the House, as members have done, um as has been set out during the May local elections, there were reports about the candidacy of an individual standing for local office who had previously been convicted of terrorism offences overseas. Now, as we all know, in this House, elections are democracy in action.
The community considered the candidates before them, and it made its choice at the ballot box. And that individual was not elected. And I recognise what my colleague from Birmingham, Northfield said about Birmingham. And he is right to stand up for the good sense of Birmingham people, and I look forward to being in the fine city of Birmingham myself on Thursday. To hear more about issues that we're working on there. Now our system plays places trust not only in legal thresholds, but in the judgment of the electorate.
People will ask whether somebody with a serious terrorism conviction should be able to stand at all, even if the ultimate electorate does ultimately reject them.
And I remain proud every day of the work of my predecessors did in office, to bring about peace on these islands, and I am glad that he has reasserted the value of that peace through this debate today. Democracy depends on public participation, so it's only right and fitting that I acknowledge and thank the more than 200,000 people who signed the petition calling to ban anyone convicted of terrorism offences, from signing from standing for public office. The government recognises the concern that underpins this petition. Public confidence in our democratic institution matters and terrorism represents one of the gravest threats to our society.
As members have said in this chamber today, and while this House clearly understands the threat of terrorism, serious, the question is whether a further electoral disqualification is the right, proportionate and effective response, and how any such change would sit alongside the current and proposed wider legal framework. So what I'll do in my response is set out what the government is doing, but before I do so, I just want, in response to what members have said to repeat the Defense Secretary's words from the recent questions. On the 8th of June in which he said.
That the Defending Democracy Task Force is looking carefully at the issue and. He said in response to the member for Stockton that the government is considering whether further action is required and that he would be happy to work with members on it, and I will make sure that the Defence Secretary sees a copy of the debate that we've had today and, again, extend that offer to members to work with the defending. My teeth back in the Defending Democracy Task Force on these issues, and I thank the opposition spokesperson for his offer.
And to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her interest. And I know that the Defence Secretary will be grateful for the points that they've raised today. It's worth noting the wider context in which this petition has come before the House, as members have done, um as has been set out during the May local elections, there were reports about the candidacy of an individual standing for local office who had previously been convicted of terrorism offences overseas. Now, as we all know, in this House, elections are democracy in action.
The community considered the candidates before them, and it made its choice at the ballot box. And that individual was not elected. And I recognise what my colleague from Birmingham, Northfield said about Birmingham. And he is right to stand up for the good sense of Birmingham people, and I look forward to being in the fine city of Birmingham myself on Thursday. To hear more about issues that we're working on there. Now our system plays places trust not only in legal thresholds, but in the judgment of the electorate.
People will ask whether somebody with a serious terrorism conviction should be able to stand at all, even if the ultimate electorate does ultimately reject them.
17:21
17:21
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Way I'd just like to clearly understand, before we move away from Shahid Butt's, that he was allowed to stand for local elections, and the government have said that they currently have no plans to change the disqualification criteria for those standing for election. Can I just simply ask the Minister why is that, when at the moment somebody who is convicted of terrorism offences is allowed to stand, why would the government not want to change that?
17:21
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you, Doctor Allin-khan. And as I set out to. Members at the beginning of my contribution as a Defence Secretary, said the Defending Democracy Task Force is keeping this under review, I'm going to discuss disqualification. The disqualification framework just now in my contribution. So let me set out the current position. In England, a person is disqualified from being elected to or being a member of a local authority if they have been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for three months or more, including a suspended sentence within the previous five years.
Candidates are required to declare that they are not disqualified when they submit nomination papers, and making a false statement is a criminal offence. Where eligibility is disputed, that is a matter for the courts and this would be particularly true where the issues may involve historic convictions or offences committed overseas. As clearly returning officers cannot make subjective judgments over the suitability of eligible candidates. The phrase standing for office public office covers a wide range of roles, each with different responsibilities and existing disqualification rules. Changing these rules would mean considering carefully whether the same approach should apply not just to councillors but also mayors, police and crime commissioners, members of parliament and devolved government.
Any such exclusion as proposed must be principled, proportionate and legally robust, and a lifetime or indefinite ban is the most serious restriction if Parliament chooses to create such a bar, it must be precise about who it captures, why it's necessary and safeguard against unfair or unintended consequences that prevent citizens engaging in our democracy. Now, let me turn briefly to the counter-terrorism framework. The threat from terrorism is always evolving, which is why we always keep our broader counter-terrorism framework under review and ensure our operational partners have the tools that they need to mitigate risk to the public, independent of disqualification from elected office.
The UK has one of the strongest counter-terrorism frameworks in the world, and this includes a range of specialist counter-terrorism powers which support detection and disruption of terrorist risk, as well as a robust toolkit for managing terrorist offenders. Upon their release. This is supported through the independent scrutiny provided by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Electoral law determines who may stand for office. Counter-Terrorism law exists to provide the police and other operational partners with a toolkit to disrupt, investigate and prosecute terrorism related activity.
Alongside both, the government is taking action to strengthen our democracy and electoral integrity and to protect those who participate in our democracy. And I just came from the statement that my colleague, the minister responsible for the bill that has been mentioned, gave in the Commons chamber, harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is totally unacceptable and has a profound, a profoundly detrimental impact on our democracy and our democratic process. Impersonation and fraudulent nominations reduce the trust integral to democracy. That is why this government has introduced the representation of the people Bill to take decisive action to secure our elections against those who threaten them, and to protect those who participate, to ensure our democracy remains open and accessible to legitimate voters, and to strengthen and preserve our democracy for the next generation.
Requiring candidates to submit ID and sign a declaration confirming they understand the legal consequences of of providing false information will strengthen public confidence without creating unnecessary barriers to standing. This bill will empower courts to give tougher sentences to those who abuse candidates. Campaigners, elected representatives and electoral staff. These measures will also be supported by working with the Electoral Commission and Speakers Conference to develop an updated code of conduct for campaigning and improved safety for returning officers and candidates. From the moment a candidate puts himself forward and asked the public to place trust in them, they are subject to public scrutiny, disqualification rules decide whether someone is legally allowed to stand for election disqualification.
Rules do not decide whether that person has the character, judgement or conduct to serve. That is for the public to decide at the ballot box. Once elected, members are expected to uphold codes of conduct based on the seven principles of public life selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. And these are the foundations of trust in public life. We are. However, I will, of course.
Candidates are required to declare that they are not disqualified when they submit nomination papers, and making a false statement is a criminal offence. Where eligibility is disputed, that is a matter for the courts and this would be particularly true where the issues may involve historic convictions or offences committed overseas. As clearly returning officers cannot make subjective judgments over the suitability of eligible candidates. The phrase standing for office public office covers a wide range of roles, each with different responsibilities and existing disqualification rules. Changing these rules would mean considering carefully whether the same approach should apply not just to councillors but also mayors, police and crime commissioners, members of parliament and devolved government.
Any such exclusion as proposed must be principled, proportionate and legally robust, and a lifetime or indefinite ban is the most serious restriction if Parliament chooses to create such a bar, it must be precise about who it captures, why it's necessary and safeguard against unfair or unintended consequences that prevent citizens engaging in our democracy. Now, let me turn briefly to the counter-terrorism framework. The threat from terrorism is always evolving, which is why we always keep our broader counter-terrorism framework under review and ensure our operational partners have the tools that they need to mitigate risk to the public, independent of disqualification from elected office.
The UK has one of the strongest counter-terrorism frameworks in the world, and this includes a range of specialist counter-terrorism powers which support detection and disruption of terrorist risk, as well as a robust toolkit for managing terrorist offenders. Upon their release. This is supported through the independent scrutiny provided by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Electoral law determines who may stand for office. Counter-Terrorism law exists to provide the police and other operational partners with a toolkit to disrupt, investigate and prosecute terrorism related activity.
Alongside both, the government is taking action to strengthen our democracy and electoral integrity and to protect those who participate in our democracy. And I just came from the statement that my colleague, the minister responsible for the bill that has been mentioned, gave in the Commons chamber, harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is totally unacceptable and has a profound, a profoundly detrimental impact on our democracy and our democratic process. Impersonation and fraudulent nominations reduce the trust integral to democracy. That is why this government has introduced the representation of the people Bill to take decisive action to secure our elections against those who threaten them, and to protect those who participate, to ensure our democracy remains open and accessible to legitimate voters, and to strengthen and preserve our democracy for the next generation.
Requiring candidates to submit ID and sign a declaration confirming they understand the legal consequences of of providing false information will strengthen public confidence without creating unnecessary barriers to standing. This bill will empower courts to give tougher sentences to those who abuse candidates. Campaigners, elected representatives and electoral staff. These measures will also be supported by working with the Electoral Commission and Speakers Conference to develop an updated code of conduct for campaigning and improved safety for returning officers and candidates. From the moment a candidate puts himself forward and asked the public to place trust in them, they are subject to public scrutiny, disqualification rules decide whether someone is legally allowed to stand for election disqualification.
Rules do not decide whether that person has the character, judgement or conduct to serve. That is for the public to decide at the ballot box. Once elected, members are expected to uphold codes of conduct based on the seven principles of public life selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. And these are the foundations of trust in public life. We are. However, I will, of course.
17:26
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I'm very grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I'm just wanting to pick up on a previous point just made there in terms of it's for the electorate to decide just to make a case in point about Northern Ireland, where we did obviously make that decision, and it was a bitter pill to allow people who were terrorists to get out of jail early as part of a wider peace process, however, were some of those people have gone on to actually attain elected office, which is their right?We have seen a rewriting of history.
So it isn't just that the people are there to decide. We also, as a state, retain the right to make sure that we regard terrorism as wrong in the past and those that continue to propagate it by other means are also held accountable.
So it isn't just that the people are there to decide. We also, as a state, retain the right to make sure that we regard terrorism as wrong in the past and those that continue to propagate it by other means are also held accountable.
17:27
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you, doctor, and I thank the honourable lady for the point that she makes. Clearly, there is no excuse or justification for terrorism. And I repeat those standards that we must all uphold in public life. For that reason, as she made her point clearly and directly on the record, we are, however, all too aware. I will give way very briefly, but I don't want to detain.
17:27
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
The minister talks about standards and upholding them in public life, but as I indicated in my speech, weekend after weekend in Northern Ireland, we have those in public life glorifying terrorism, saluting the memories of their fallen colleagues, as they call them, who were vile, vicious terrorists. How is that upholding any standards in public life?
17:27
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
And thank you, doctor, and I thank the honourable gentleman for the point that he raises. And I would simply say, again, there is absolutely no justification for terrorism. And all of us who seek elective office, elected office are responsible ourselves for upholding those standards that I just read into the record. We are all too aware. In Mhclg that the current Local Government standards framework does not have the teeth it needs, where elected members fall short of the standards the public rightly expects, there must be meaningful ways to hold them to account, and our.
Relation to English local government. The vast majority of councillors serve their communities with dedication and integrity. Poor behaviour, though rare, can have a profound impact. It can damage trust, undermine the performance of local government and deter good candidates from contesting elections. If we want high quality candidates to come forward, they need the confidence that local government is serious, respectful and safe environment in which to serve. That is why we will introduce a framework that commands public confidence to include a mandatory code of conduct for local government, appropriate sanctions, such as suspension and disqualification for multiple breaches and fair processes, such as a clear appeals route for complainants and for members.
Last year we published the response to the Consultation on Strengthening the standards framework for local authorities in England. We have a substantial and ambitious legislative programme and there was not the capacity for a dedicated bill to enact these reforms this time, but we remain committed to strengthening this framework, and we intend to bring forward legislation just as soon as parliamentary time allows. So in closing, I would just say that the 200,000 people who sign this petition raise a serious and legitimate question about whether the current framework is sufficient.
And as I mentioned in my opening, the Defending Democracy Task Force is considering it existing disqualification criteria. Candidate declarations, public scrutiny alongside our wider counter-terrorism powers provide significant safeguards from immediate threats, and we are going further. We will strengthen our systems to protect our democracy and embed high standards of member conduct, and rebuild trust in public office. Any change in the law would need to be workable for electoral administrators. Fair to candidates, robust in the courts and clear to the public, and most importantly, uphold the values of democracy that we hold dear.
And I am very sure that members in this House will continue to engage in this most serious of issues. Thank you.
Relation to English local government. The vast majority of councillors serve their communities with dedication and integrity. Poor behaviour, though rare, can have a profound impact. It can damage trust, undermine the performance of local government and deter good candidates from contesting elections. If we want high quality candidates to come forward, they need the confidence that local government is serious, respectful and safe environment in which to serve. That is why we will introduce a framework that commands public confidence to include a mandatory code of conduct for local government, appropriate sanctions, such as suspension and disqualification for multiple breaches and fair processes, such as a clear appeals route for complainants and for members.
Last year we published the response to the Consultation on Strengthening the standards framework for local authorities in England. We have a substantial and ambitious legislative programme and there was not the capacity for a dedicated bill to enact these reforms this time, but we remain committed to strengthening this framework, and we intend to bring forward legislation just as soon as parliamentary time allows. So in closing, I would just say that the 200,000 people who sign this petition raise a serious and legitimate question about whether the current framework is sufficient.
And as I mentioned in my opening, the Defending Democracy Task Force is considering it existing disqualification criteria. Candidate declarations, public scrutiny alongside our wider counter-terrorism powers provide significant safeguards from immediate threats, and we are going further. We will strengthen our systems to protect our democracy and embed high standards of member conduct, and rebuild trust in public office. Any change in the law would need to be workable for electoral administrators. Fair to candidates, robust in the courts and clear to the public, and most importantly, uphold the values of democracy that we hold dear.
And I am very sure that members in this House will continue to engage in this most serious of issues. Thank you.
17:30
17:30
17:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And can I thank all the members who participated in this in this important debate, particularly the members for Birmingham, Northfield, Keighley and Ilkley, and. Antrim. North Antrim, who all made very, very valid points, particularly the member from both members from Northern Ireland who obviously are acutely aware of the challenges of having terrorism terrorists operating within their democratic institutions. And I apologise to the North Antrim member. I totally forgot that Martin McGuinness had been convicted. And of course, somebody who anybody who is convicted of a terrorism offence should not be allowed to to to stand for office.
I appreciate that the minister's response and her um, very positive initial start. I have to say I'm a bit disappointed with her conclusion in that this is such an important principle. People who want to destroy our democracy, people who want to pull the rug from under us, people who have gone to great lengths to bring down everything that we in this place believe in, should absolutely not be allowed to stand for election, whether it's local government, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Irish Assembly, the UK Parliament, Westminster if they have ever held those views, those fundamental views of bringing down the very pillars of what our country believes in, the absolutely should not be allowed to stand for Parliament.
And I was disappointed that the Minister could not quite bring herself to say that, yes, there are challenges around overseas convictions, but we employ very clever drafters for our government. They can come up with wording to get around that and ensure that those people who have been wrongly accused of something overseas are not debarred from standing for election. Yes, we have disqualification rules, but we should be able to extend them further to ensure that terrorists, those people who want to destroy our country and the institutions that we all guard and protect dearly in this place, should be barred from standing from government.
So I do hope that standing from Parliament, I do hope that the minister and our government will reflect on today's debate, reflect on what the petitioner has, has put forward and all the people who have signed that petition. So I'll conclude by thanking. Again, um, the, um, the petitioner, um, Richard, for bringing forward, um, this. Richard Dawson for bringing it forward this petition and thank all members who have taken part.
I appreciate that the minister's response and her um, very positive initial start. I have to say I'm a bit disappointed with her conclusion in that this is such an important principle. People who want to destroy our democracy, people who want to pull the rug from under us, people who have gone to great lengths to bring down everything that we in this place believe in, should absolutely not be allowed to stand for election, whether it's local government, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Irish Assembly, the UK Parliament, Westminster if they have ever held those views, those fundamental views of bringing down the very pillars of what our country believes in, the absolutely should not be allowed to stand for Parliament.
And I was disappointed that the Minister could not quite bring herself to say that, yes, there are challenges around overseas convictions, but we employ very clever drafters for our government. They can come up with wording to get around that and ensure that those people who have been wrongly accused of something overseas are not debarred from standing for election. Yes, we have disqualification rules, but we should be able to extend them further to ensure that terrorists, those people who want to destroy our country and the institutions that we all guard and protect dearly in this place, should be barred from standing from government.
So I do hope that standing from Parliament, I do hope that the minister and our government will reflect on today's debate, reflect on what the petitioner has, has put forward and all the people who have signed that petition. So I'll conclude by thanking. Again, um, the, um, the petitioner, um, Richard, for bringing forward, um, this. Richard Dawson for bringing it forward this petition and thank all members who have taken part.
17:33
17:59
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Order, order!Good afternoon everyone. Dave Robertson to move the motion. Thank you, Doctor Morrison. Can I say as ever, what a pleasure it is to see you in the chair today. Um, I beg to move that this house has considered e-petition 764785 relating to support for the ceramics industry. And before I get going, I'd like to declare that I am a member of the General and Municipal Boilermakers Union. The GMB. Um, it is a particular pleasure to introduce this debate as a ceramics MP and to add my full throated support to the petition and its aims.
My constituency, Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages is home to Armitage Shanks, a company that has been manufacturing bathroom ware in the village of Armitage, from which it takes its name for more than 200 years. And the identity of that village is inextricably tied up with that company. But sadly, my constituents will fully recognise the petitions characterization of a struggling ceramic sector because, like so many of our British ceramics businesses, Armitage Shanks Despite the best efforts and hard work of the brilliant staff that they have, there has been suffering.
Earlier this year, the firm now owned by Villeroy and Bach, a German manufacturer, was forced to close one of the kilns at its site in a bid to keep the business internationally competitive. That closure has had a real impact on the community. 100 jobs were lost as a result, and it is a reminder that when we see. Armitage ceramics brands struggling. It's not just about our country's manufacturing history. It's not just about the heritage of the areas that support those businesses, but it's about present day jobs, skills and livelihoods.
I visited the sites the site of Armitage, multiple times in recent months, and the concerns that I've heard over and over and over again from workers there and from their union, the GMB, fully echo this petition. Because the job losses at Armitage Shanks are sadly just one example of the pressures that the sector faces. In 2025, we lost two ceramics firms in Stoke on Trent, the Royal Stafford and Heraldic Pottery, a blow that went right to the heart of that city's identity. Last month, the final pieces of pottery rolled off the production lines at Denby in Derbyshire, which was a sad moment for many people, but especially my hon.
Friend for Amber Valley in. March, the iconic British brand, known around the world for quality, manufacture and design, entered administration and the collapse of Denby, has also led to more than 100 skilled workers losing their jobs. And it is thanks to one of them, Hayley, who I'm very glad to see in the public gallery today that we are here debating this motion today. I really would like to congratulate her on her first week in a new position that she's found elsewhere, but I'm sure that she would have liked to have come to that through rather better circumstances.
Um, I'm also sure that I speak for all honourable and right honourable members in the room today when I say that British ceramics is rich for. I will be able to finish the sentence in a minute. I'm going to go back to that line. Um, I'm sure I speak for all honourable and right honourable members when I say that British ceramics is richer for retaining her experience and passion within the industry.
My constituency, Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages is home to Armitage Shanks, a company that has been manufacturing bathroom ware in the village of Armitage, from which it takes its name for more than 200 years. And the identity of that village is inextricably tied up with that company. But sadly, my constituents will fully recognise the petitions characterization of a struggling ceramic sector because, like so many of our British ceramics businesses, Armitage Shanks Despite the best efforts and hard work of the brilliant staff that they have, there has been suffering.
Earlier this year, the firm now owned by Villeroy and Bach, a German manufacturer, was forced to close one of the kilns at its site in a bid to keep the business internationally competitive. That closure has had a real impact on the community. 100 jobs were lost as a result, and it is a reminder that when we see. Armitage ceramics brands struggling. It's not just about our country's manufacturing history. It's not just about the heritage of the areas that support those businesses, but it's about present day jobs, skills and livelihoods.
I visited the sites the site of Armitage, multiple times in recent months, and the concerns that I've heard over and over and over again from workers there and from their union, the GMB, fully echo this petition. Because the job losses at Armitage Shanks are sadly just one example of the pressures that the sector faces. In 2025, we lost two ceramics firms in Stoke on Trent, the Royal Stafford and Heraldic Pottery, a blow that went right to the heart of that city's identity. Last month, the final pieces of pottery rolled off the production lines at Denby in Derbyshire, which was a sad moment for many people, but especially my hon.
Friend for Amber Valley in. March, the iconic British brand, known around the world for quality, manufacture and design, entered administration and the collapse of Denby, has also led to more than 100 skilled workers losing their jobs. And it is thanks to one of them, Hayley, who I'm very glad to see in the public gallery today that we are here debating this motion today. I really would like to congratulate her on her first week in a new position that she's found elsewhere, but I'm sure that she would have liked to have come to that through rather better circumstances.
Um, I'm also sure that I speak for all honourable and right honourable members in the room today when I say that British ceramics is rich for. I will be able to finish the sentence in a minute. I'm going to go back to that line. Um, I'm sure I speak for all honourable and right honourable members when I say that British ceramics is richer for retaining her experience and passion within the industry.
18:03
18:03
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Hayley's petition could not be more timely. And when we met ahead of this debate to discuss her concerns, they echoed the worries that I hear from constituencies, constituents, businesses and unions in my area that I and other ceramics MPs gathered here today have been pressing the government on. I am actually not surprised to see so many honourable, honourable members joining us today because indeed, almost 110 000 people have signed a petition and more than 10% of those, those signatories come from just seven constituencies. This is an issue that is very much centred on Staffordshire, Derby, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, and people in our areas care deeply about this.
Hayley's petition recognises that much of the ceramics sector in our country is in crisis. Soaring industrial energy costs have left businesses at the risk of imminent collapse without urgent intervention, she warns. Ceramics manufacturing relies on high levels of both electricity and gas, and when those prices rise here in the UK, it puts our businesses at a competitive disadvantage on the international stage.
Hayley's petition recognises that much of the ceramics sector in our country is in crisis. Soaring industrial energy costs have left businesses at the risk of imminent collapse without urgent intervention, she warns. Ceramics manufacturing relies on high levels of both electricity and gas, and when those prices rise here in the UK, it puts our businesses at a competitive disadvantage on the international stage.
18:04
18:04
18:04
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I thank my for giving way in what is a clearly a very, very important, uh, debate, not only for his particular area, but also for UK manufacturing more widely in relation to those challenges on, on energy costs, the ceramics industry has suffered very similar challenges to those of the critical minerals sector, specifically tin mining and processing sector. In my Camborne-redruth and Hayle constituency. Does he agree with me that the government must go further and faster to replicate some of the support for critical minerals that has been afforded to the ceramics industry?
18:04
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I thank my good friend and honourable. My good and honourable friend for his intervention. He's absolutely right to raise the the importance of energy costs to industry right across the United Kingdom. Ceramics, though, is the hardest to decarbonise. Ceramics is the hardest industry to decarbonise, and I think it is right that the government is looking at this specifically, given the geographical nature of it, and taking that especially carved out support for ceramics. But I will we'll be returning to that slightly later on.
And if we go back to that problem that was so ably diagnosed by Hayley, she's also offered a solution. The petition calls on the government to urgently review the British Industrial Supercharger, a scheme that helps energy intensive businesses including steel and chemicals and paper manufacturers with their electricity costs, and actually calls for that to be extended to the ceramics sector. Denby said during the last few months that actually relief through the supercharger scheme would have saved them, but currently ceramics businesses are falling through the cracks in that scheme now.
Since Hayley started this. Of course I will. Giving way, and.
And if we go back to that problem that was so ably diagnosed by Hayley, she's also offered a solution. The petition calls on the government to urgently review the British Industrial Supercharger, a scheme that helps energy intensive businesses including steel and chemicals and paper manufacturers with their electricity costs, and actually calls for that to be extended to the ceramics sector. Denby said during the last few months that actually relief through the supercharger scheme would have saved them, but currently ceramics businesses are falling through the cracks in that scheme now.
Since Hayley started this. Of course I will. Giving way, and.
18:06
18:06
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Friend for Camborne and Redruth has pointed out, the critical minerals industry more widely lacks support through Bics and the supercharger scheme. But as does um upstream China clay production. And that's a huge concern for one of the supply chain industries that supports many of my hon. Friends businesses in this room.
18:06
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It seems like Cornwall have come mob handed today. I'm getting it from both sides. Um, um, I think they're absolutely right. You just go back to that point about Reindustrializing the nation we've heard for so long about deindustrialised areas and former industrial areas. And actually it's fantastic to see the government continuing to talk and continuing to drive about reindustrializing our areas and bringing high skilled, high quality unionized jobs back to our communities where they belong, where they deserve to be.
And returning to ceramics, though, since this petition was started, the government has recognised the challenge facing the ceramics sector specifically and pledged a £120 million package in targeted support. That funding is hugely welcome and but we all know that that funding alone is not enough, and a lot now hangs on the design of that scheme, ensuring that the money is delivered quickly, that it's well targeted at the companies that most need it, and the companies that it's going to be able to protect the most jobs. And crucially, actually, that it's simple for firms to apply some of the ceramics firms that we talk about do employ large numbers of people, but they don't have significant back offices where they're going to be able to go through very, very complex and heavy administrative processes in order to be able to access the scheme.
So whilst it's important that we get it right and that companies are asked for the right information to be able to support that, it's also crucial that we don't create an administrative barrier where one doesn't need to be. I know that myself and other hon. Friends here today will continue to work on this alongside the GMB, other unions and of course, the government. We must ensure that that funding helps bolster and secure this industry for the long term, rather than simply kicking the can down the road.
And that brings me to why supporting this sector is so important. And all of us here today know this, but I will never miss the opportunity to remind a minister. Ceramic manufacturing goes to the heart of the identity in our counties. So many ceramics firms take their names from the towns, villages and areas where they are based. They've made those places famous around the world. I, in fact, spoke to one honourable member who had used an Armitage Shanks toilet in Samoa, and that is a very powerful form of soft power.
If people will excuse a rather crude pun.
And returning to ceramics, though, since this petition was started, the government has recognised the challenge facing the ceramics sector specifically and pledged a £120 million package in targeted support. That funding is hugely welcome and but we all know that that funding alone is not enough, and a lot now hangs on the design of that scheme, ensuring that the money is delivered quickly, that it's well targeted at the companies that most need it, and the companies that it's going to be able to protect the most jobs. And crucially, actually, that it's simple for firms to apply some of the ceramics firms that we talk about do employ large numbers of people, but they don't have significant back offices where they're going to be able to go through very, very complex and heavy administrative processes in order to be able to access the scheme.
So whilst it's important that we get it right and that companies are asked for the right information to be able to support that, it's also crucial that we don't create an administrative barrier where one doesn't need to be. I know that myself and other hon. Friends here today will continue to work on this alongside the GMB, other unions and of course, the government. We must ensure that that funding helps bolster and secure this industry for the long term, rather than simply kicking the can down the road.
And that brings me to why supporting this sector is so important. And all of us here today know this, but I will never miss the opportunity to remind a minister. Ceramic manufacturing goes to the heart of the identity in our counties. So many ceramics firms take their names from the towns, villages and areas where they are based. They've made those places famous around the world. I, in fact, spoke to one honourable member who had used an Armitage Shanks toilet in Samoa, and that is a very powerful form of soft power.
If people will excuse a rather crude pun.
18:08
18:08
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Ceramics. Jobs powered our economies, like Stoke on Trent, is literally known as the Potteries. And if I don't mention it, I'm not sure I'll be allowed to leave here. Um. But just as the closure of mine struck at the identity of the towns that supported them, including places like Stoke on Trent, deindustrialization has hurt our communities. Ceramics speaks to a proud tradition of world class manufacturing in our counties. But as I've said already, it's not just about the past, it's about the present and the future.
It's about providing jobs for people where at the end of the day, they can go out and they can look and they can have the sense of satisfaction, of looking at a palette of whatever they've produced and knowing that that was their job today. And they've made something from there. It is a proud tradition and one that we should not want to avoid. And I want to say that we should not want we should want to see past into the past. Ceramics is um.
Sorry. In order to support that soft power, those iconic British brands need to know that they can have a, um, a supporter in our government. And I would really like to see our public procurement work much harder to make sure that they are championing the very best of British and actually the very best of international ceramics, because the very best of international ceramics comes from the Midlands of the UK. And I will defend that hill until there is no breath left in my lungs.
And it is entirely possible that our public procurement should be used to support ceramics. And I think it would be fantastic that every embassy should be stocked with ceramics made in Britain. And again, they're all behind me. Every public building should be looking at whether they can support British made ceramics in their sanitaryware. The list goes much, much, much further than that. And I'd also like to take the opportunity here to draw attention to the private member's bill introduced by my hon.
Friend the member for Stoke on Trent Central Central, which I am supporting. Uh, that bill relates to back stamping the Made in Britain marque so that we can indeed make sure that when something says Made in Britain, it is from Britain and it is the highest quality that people should be able to expect. Uh, currently, firms can import ceramics cheaply made elsewhere, glaze them here, refine them, and stamp them as British. Um, and being able to support that supply chain, that supply chain through not only public procurement, but also for, um, with that back stamping bill would be very, very, very important.
Widen that though we do need to come back to the supercharger. Ceramics is an energy intensive industry. It relies on high inputs of electricity and gas. But electricity prices here in the UK are higher than in many of our competitor countries, and that takes a toll on the industry. And it does mean that this supercharger scheme is so important. Entry to that scheme is based on what's known as a SIC code, an I C code, and the categories that government use to classify businesses and identify what they do.
The SIC codes in use for ceramics are not currently eligible for the scheme, but we're still. Because of the way the scheme is funded, ceramics businesses are actually being levied to pay for other high energy businesses to be subsidised because if you don't receive the supercharger, you are paying for other people to get it. Um. Ahead of this debate, I met with ceramics UK, the industry Association, GMB union and the Trade Union Congress as well as energy UK. And one of the concerns that came through was that the SIC codes are not necessarily being properly applied.
And if you look at the number of the businesses that the government counts in ceramics, it's far, far higher than the number that the actual sector recognises. And hopefully that's good news for ministers, because if we can get those codes altered, altered correctly, then we can actually see that there'll be fewer ceramics businesses in need of that support. And it will help. A headache in the treasury. Um, so firstly, we can look at tightening up the SIC codes. We can extend the supercharger to those codes, and we can ensure that the supercharger scheme is properly funded by the Treasury and not by other energy, other businesses, so that general taxation can support these jobs beyond the supercharger, which is undoubtedly vital for ceramics, the government has committed and recognises that the industry needs tailored support, and I would ask ministers to look closely at the specific pressures that the sector is facing, as well as high electricity inputs.
Ceramics does use a huge amount of gas, and whilst gas is. The cost of gas in Britain is internationally competitive, and prices are highly volatile because of a lack of storage, etcetera, etcetera, in the United Kingdom, um. If we could look at some form of supporting gas storage or some other mechanism to smooth peaks and troughs in gas pricing, it would help support ceramics businesses with their long term planning and help them look at their decarbonisation processes to decarbonisation. Hydrogen gas is a promising alternative, but hydrogen kiln technology requires further investment and if we can't pipe that gas in, there will be serious problems.
Some of these ceramics manufacturers run their kilns 24 over seven, three, 65, and the idea that hydrogen is going to be brought in by lorries just doesn't stack up. And so in order to support that, we can use revenues from carbon levies to support that transition and protect those manufacturing jobs, both for today and for the future. So to conclude, and I have gone slightly over what I was aiming to. There will be many other honourable and honourable members here and eager to support and make the case for this industry.
So I will draw to a close, but I'd like to reiterate my thanks to ceramics UK, the GMB, TUC and Energy Energy UK for meeting me to Haley for spurring today's important debate, but also to every single one of those workers who goes out day after day and produces fantastic, high quality and some of the best ceramics in the world right here in the UK. The question is that this House has considered E-petition seven 64785 relating to support for the ceramics industry. Lots of interest in this, colleagues.
I'm imposing an indicative time limit of four minutes, please. Um, an exemplar of which will be Sir Gavin Williamson.
It's about providing jobs for people where at the end of the day, they can go out and they can look and they can have the sense of satisfaction, of looking at a palette of whatever they've produced and knowing that that was their job today. And they've made something from there. It is a proud tradition and one that we should not want to avoid. And I want to say that we should not want we should want to see past into the past. Ceramics is um.
Sorry. In order to support that soft power, those iconic British brands need to know that they can have a, um, a supporter in our government. And I would really like to see our public procurement work much harder to make sure that they are championing the very best of British and actually the very best of international ceramics, because the very best of international ceramics comes from the Midlands of the UK. And I will defend that hill until there is no breath left in my lungs.
And it is entirely possible that our public procurement should be used to support ceramics. And I think it would be fantastic that every embassy should be stocked with ceramics made in Britain. And again, they're all behind me. Every public building should be looking at whether they can support British made ceramics in their sanitaryware. The list goes much, much, much further than that. And I'd also like to take the opportunity here to draw attention to the private member's bill introduced by my hon.
Friend the member for Stoke on Trent Central Central, which I am supporting. Uh, that bill relates to back stamping the Made in Britain marque so that we can indeed make sure that when something says Made in Britain, it is from Britain and it is the highest quality that people should be able to expect. Uh, currently, firms can import ceramics cheaply made elsewhere, glaze them here, refine them, and stamp them as British. Um, and being able to support that supply chain, that supply chain through not only public procurement, but also for, um, with that back stamping bill would be very, very, very important.
Widen that though we do need to come back to the supercharger. Ceramics is an energy intensive industry. It relies on high inputs of electricity and gas. But electricity prices here in the UK are higher than in many of our competitor countries, and that takes a toll on the industry. And it does mean that this supercharger scheme is so important. Entry to that scheme is based on what's known as a SIC code, an I C code, and the categories that government use to classify businesses and identify what they do.
The SIC codes in use for ceramics are not currently eligible for the scheme, but we're still. Because of the way the scheme is funded, ceramics businesses are actually being levied to pay for other high energy businesses to be subsidised because if you don't receive the supercharger, you are paying for other people to get it. Um. Ahead of this debate, I met with ceramics UK, the industry Association, GMB union and the Trade Union Congress as well as energy UK. And one of the concerns that came through was that the SIC codes are not necessarily being properly applied.
And if you look at the number of the businesses that the government counts in ceramics, it's far, far higher than the number that the actual sector recognises. And hopefully that's good news for ministers, because if we can get those codes altered, altered correctly, then we can actually see that there'll be fewer ceramics businesses in need of that support. And it will help. A headache in the treasury. Um, so firstly, we can look at tightening up the SIC codes. We can extend the supercharger to those codes, and we can ensure that the supercharger scheme is properly funded by the Treasury and not by other energy, other businesses, so that general taxation can support these jobs beyond the supercharger, which is undoubtedly vital for ceramics, the government has committed and recognises that the industry needs tailored support, and I would ask ministers to look closely at the specific pressures that the sector is facing, as well as high electricity inputs.
Ceramics does use a huge amount of gas, and whilst gas is. The cost of gas in Britain is internationally competitive, and prices are highly volatile because of a lack of storage, etcetera, etcetera, in the United Kingdom, um. If we could look at some form of supporting gas storage or some other mechanism to smooth peaks and troughs in gas pricing, it would help support ceramics businesses with their long term planning and help them look at their decarbonisation processes to decarbonisation. Hydrogen gas is a promising alternative, but hydrogen kiln technology requires further investment and if we can't pipe that gas in, there will be serious problems.
Some of these ceramics manufacturers run their kilns 24 over seven, three, 65, and the idea that hydrogen is going to be brought in by lorries just doesn't stack up. And so in order to support that, we can use revenues from carbon levies to support that transition and protect those manufacturing jobs, both for today and for the future. So to conclude, and I have gone slightly over what I was aiming to. There will be many other honourable and honourable members here and eager to support and make the case for this industry.
So I will draw to a close, but I'd like to reiterate my thanks to ceramics UK, the GMB, TUC and Energy Energy UK for meeting me to Haley for spurring today's important debate, but also to every single one of those workers who goes out day after day and produces fantastic, high quality and some of the best ceramics in the world right here in the UK. The question is that this House has considered E-petition seven 64785 relating to support for the ceramics industry. Lots of interest in this, colleagues.
I'm imposing an indicative time limit of four minutes, please. Um, an exemplar of which will be Sir Gavin Williamson.
18:14
18:14
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I'd like to congratulate my constituency neighbour in securing this debate. Um, as probably one of the few people who is a member of Parliament that worked in the ceramics industry, um, for me, this isn't just about jobs, it's actually about who we are. It's about identity. It's about what it means to actually make something that is so tangible, so real, and that can make a difference. And it does make a difference to our economy.
It contributes £2 billion to our economy. It contributes to our economy, and £600 million worth of exports where we are in a country that sadly, Mr. Chairman, exports to little. And it is a tragedy that we are in a situation where we see, because ceramics isn't just cups and saucers, plates and bowls. It's the tiles on our homes. It's the bricks. And I've got some amazing ceramics businesses in my constituency, whether that's Dunoon, Lucideon, Amrik and of course, Ibstock, which makes the iconic Staffordshire blue brick.
But it is crazy that we're in a situation where we are seeing bricks imported from India, from Turkey, from the Netherlands into this country, and actually British manufacturers who, employing British people, providing British exports, are being priced out of this market. And I would like to point out that the core issue here is energy costs. Energy costs first, second and third. Now, it would be disingenuous of me not to thank the government for action it has taken in order to support the ceramic sector, but we will continue to see a decline in ceramics unless we address that core issue of energy.
Now, the government has made important steps in terms of addressing this issue. The steps in terms of actually the supercharger are important, but the reality is, in ceramics, only 10% of ceramics businesses are able to apply for that. And that's for the simple reason is that gas isn't included or not in the way that they are able to access it. And 86%. 86% of the cost of energy for ceramics manufacturers isn't electricity. It's gas. And this isn't through choice.
It is actually through necessity. In order to be able to make the product. They're not sat there thinking, I don't want to do the transition to electricity. They cannot make that transition. And hydrogen, as the honourable member for Litchfield rightly pointed out, is not going to be able to come to the rescue in order to save those jobs. Mr. chairman, I'm very conscious that so many people want to contribute. So I will just sort of ask the minister.
It contributes £2 billion to our economy. It contributes to our economy, and £600 million worth of exports where we are in a country that sadly, Mr. Chairman, exports to little. And it is a tragedy that we are in a situation where we see, because ceramics isn't just cups and saucers, plates and bowls. It's the tiles on our homes. It's the bricks. And I've got some amazing ceramics businesses in my constituency, whether that's Dunoon, Lucideon, Amrik and of course, Ibstock, which makes the iconic Staffordshire blue brick.
But it is crazy that we're in a situation where we are seeing bricks imported from India, from Turkey, from the Netherlands into this country, and actually British manufacturers who, employing British people, providing British exports, are being priced out of this market. And I would like to point out that the core issue here is energy costs. Energy costs first, second and third. Now, it would be disingenuous of me not to thank the government for action it has taken in order to support the ceramic sector, but we will continue to see a decline in ceramics unless we address that core issue of energy.
Now, the government has made important steps in terms of addressing this issue. The steps in terms of actually the supercharger are important, but the reality is, in ceramics, only 10% of ceramics businesses are able to apply for that. And that's for the simple reason is that gas isn't included or not in the way that they are able to access it. And 86%. 86% of the cost of energy for ceramics manufacturers isn't electricity. It's gas. And this isn't through choice.
It is actually through necessity. In order to be able to make the product. They're not sat there thinking, I don't want to do the transition to electricity. They cannot make that transition. And hydrogen, as the honourable member for Litchfield rightly pointed out, is not going to be able to come to the rescue in order to save those jobs. Mr. chairman, I'm very conscious that so many people want to contribute. So I will just sort of ask the minister.
18:18
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Urged him to look at setting out a timetable for a view of extending the supercharger so that it can cover gas costs. If he isn't able to. Do this. If we are not able to get the support that is required, we are sadly. Going to see more British businesses going under and more British manufacturing businesses no longer manufacturing, no longer exporting, and firms from across the sea. Stepping into that gap. And that is not something that anyone wants to see, whether that is in Staffordshire or across the United Kingdom.
18:18
18:18
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Doctor Murison. I congratulate my friend for Lichfield for presenting this debate. And my constituent Hayley, who brought this petition. And I declare that I'm also a member of GMB union. Yeah, well, the petition speaks to the wider issues facing the ceramics sector. It was set up, as you've heard, following the devastating news that Denby Pottery, the largest employer in my constituency, was entering administration. It's nearly 110 000 signatures, 3900 of those from Amber Valley. And thanks to my constituents for signing it, that the signatures are a testament to the national significance, rich history and enduring popularity of Denby Pottery handcrafted using clay from the very site on which the company was founded.
Throughout its 217 years, the pottery has remained committed to local craftsmanship, even as competitors Offshored production to mass produce goods more cheaply. That commitment inspired extraordinary loyalty, with many in the local area having worked there for decades and even generations. Yet despite its world class reputation, Denby Pottery struggled financially. It's previously been through administration and more recent global shocks in energy markets placed further pressure on manufacturing costs. That's why I worked with Hayley to produce the petition, which calls for the ceramics sector, as you've heard, to be included in the British Super Industry Supercharge scheme.
In the months that followed, I met repeatedly with ministers and officials, including raising Denby Pottery's situation directly with the Prime Minister. He committed to a full review of the supercharger scheme across all sectors, but understanding the need for a more immediate intervention for Denby Pottery and the sector more widely, the Chancellor acted decisively and announced a bespoke package of £120 million for ceramics. I'd like to thank those who worked tirelessly to produce this, including ceramics. UK, GMB union colleagues here today, the Treasury, the Ministry Minister for industry and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
Heartbroken, heartbreakingly and in spite of that support, we now know investors were ultimately unable to view Denby Pottery as a viable business proposition. So I'm now refocusing my efforts towards fighting for a different future. Working with government, the administrators, local businesses and any future purchaser of the site to maximise opportunities for good quality jobs in Amber Valley. Alongside this, I'm clear that Denby's heritage must be preserved. The on site museum told the story of more than two centuries of innovation and industry, and I commend the excellent work being done by Linda and others to ensure that the collection will be enjoyed for generations to come.
Denby pottery has many legacies, ranging from the nationally significant to the deeply personal, its heritage, its skilled and committed workforce, and the pottery itself. Treasured, gifted at weddings and passed down through generations. But today its legacy must live on in the lessons learned from its closure and in the changes that it catalyzed. So that other ceramics companies can continue and thrive. I therefore, urge the minister to continue working with industry to ensure that UK ceramics manufacturers can compete on a level playing field, and this includes insulating the sector from unfair competition, such as the dumping of heavily subsidised products from overseas markets.
The public want to back British business and manufacturing, a point illustrated by the incredibly moving scale of the support behind the hashtag Save Denby campaign. In this regard, I'd like to pay tribute to to the campaign led by my honourable friend, the member for Stoke on Trent Central, for clearer country of origin labelling. I hope the government will support his private member's bill in that regard. Chair, on this point to any potential purchaser of the brand of Denby Pottery alone, I say this if your produce is not made in Denby using clay extracted from the ground in Denby Village, handcrafted by the people of Denby.
Then, regardless of the name stamped upon it, it will never be recognised as true Denby pottery.
Throughout its 217 years, the pottery has remained committed to local craftsmanship, even as competitors Offshored production to mass produce goods more cheaply. That commitment inspired extraordinary loyalty, with many in the local area having worked there for decades and even generations. Yet despite its world class reputation, Denby Pottery struggled financially. It's previously been through administration and more recent global shocks in energy markets placed further pressure on manufacturing costs. That's why I worked with Hayley to produce the petition, which calls for the ceramics sector, as you've heard, to be included in the British Super Industry Supercharge scheme.
In the months that followed, I met repeatedly with ministers and officials, including raising Denby Pottery's situation directly with the Prime Minister. He committed to a full review of the supercharger scheme across all sectors, but understanding the need for a more immediate intervention for Denby Pottery and the sector more widely, the Chancellor acted decisively and announced a bespoke package of £120 million for ceramics. I'd like to thank those who worked tirelessly to produce this, including ceramics. UK, GMB union colleagues here today, the Treasury, the Ministry Minister for industry and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
Heartbroken, heartbreakingly and in spite of that support, we now know investors were ultimately unable to view Denby Pottery as a viable business proposition. So I'm now refocusing my efforts towards fighting for a different future. Working with government, the administrators, local businesses and any future purchaser of the site to maximise opportunities for good quality jobs in Amber Valley. Alongside this, I'm clear that Denby's heritage must be preserved. The on site museum told the story of more than two centuries of innovation and industry, and I commend the excellent work being done by Linda and others to ensure that the collection will be enjoyed for generations to come.
Denby pottery has many legacies, ranging from the nationally significant to the deeply personal, its heritage, its skilled and committed workforce, and the pottery itself. Treasured, gifted at weddings and passed down through generations. But today its legacy must live on in the lessons learned from its closure and in the changes that it catalyzed. So that other ceramics companies can continue and thrive. I therefore, urge the minister to continue working with industry to ensure that UK ceramics manufacturers can compete on a level playing field, and this includes insulating the sector from unfair competition, such as the dumping of heavily subsidised products from overseas markets.
The public want to back British business and manufacturing, a point illustrated by the incredibly moving scale of the support behind the hashtag Save Denby campaign. In this regard, I'd like to pay tribute to to the campaign led by my honourable friend, the member for Stoke on Trent Central, for clearer country of origin labelling. I hope the government will support his private member's bill in that regard. Chair, on this point to any potential purchaser of the brand of Denby Pottery alone, I say this if your produce is not made in Denby using clay extracted from the ground in Denby Village, handcrafted by the people of Denby.
Then, regardless of the name stamped upon it, it will never be recognised as true Denby pottery.
18:23
18:23
18:23
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
It's a. Pleasure, to serve under your chairmanship, and I. I congratulate the honourable member for securing this debate. And also my good friend and colleague on the Petitions Committee. The honourable member for Lichfield for an excellent introduction to this debate. The honourable member for Lichfield talks about his his wares. Armitage, Shanks. I would suggest that Armitage Shanks products are seen in some of the great houses. The length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
Now you may wonder what is a member from the North of Scotland doing on his feet in this debate. But the fact is that we have two ceramic companies in my constituency, namely Anta in Fern, owned by Archie and Annie Stewart, whose products you will see in Dumfries House. A place not unfamiliar to His Majesty the King and secondly, also Lochinver Highland Stoneware, based in Lochinver, owned by Mr. David Grant. You'll see their wares in Balmoral and we are very, very proud of this.
Now, the point about what I'm saying is that these companies actually teach local skills where otherwise they would not be taught vital local skills. Secondly, they are jobs in some of the remotest areas of the United Kingdom. And thirdly, they provide a tourist product, which is absolutely crucial when it comes to visitors. People come to the north of Scotland and I would say to honourable and right honourable members, when you please do come to my part of the world, come and see auntie's fine ceramics in the village of Fearn.
Come and see. Hands stoneware in Lochinver. You won't be disappointed. I'm not going. I wouldn't dare to compete with Stoke on Trent in terms of quality. But we're very proud of what we do. And Doctor Morrison, I'm going to keep my contribution very short because I want to make one point. It's not really pertinent to the minister, but these fledgling and now actually grown up companies very much would not have come into being if it hadn't been for a key decision taken by Harold Wilson's Labour government in the 1960s, which was to put in place the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
This was to encourage enterprise in some of the remotest parts of the UK, and to actually halt and indeed reverse the population. That was the curse of some of the remotest parts of Scotland. That was a great success story and I give credit to where it was due. However, the success story is not today what it once was. This. I warn you, Doctor Morrison is a political point. Part of a point. But sadly, under the.
The stewardship of the Scottish Government, the Development Board now hands. Enterprise is a shadow of what its parent. Once, once upon a time was, and I think that this is a great pity. And while it is not the responsibility of Minister or indeed the UK government, I make. I give due notice that this is a matter I shall continue to raise in the future. Thank you very much for your forbearance.
Now you may wonder what is a member from the North of Scotland doing on his feet in this debate. But the fact is that we have two ceramic companies in my constituency, namely Anta in Fern, owned by Archie and Annie Stewart, whose products you will see in Dumfries House. A place not unfamiliar to His Majesty the King and secondly, also Lochinver Highland Stoneware, based in Lochinver, owned by Mr. David Grant. You'll see their wares in Balmoral and we are very, very proud of this.
Now, the point about what I'm saying is that these companies actually teach local skills where otherwise they would not be taught vital local skills. Secondly, they are jobs in some of the remotest areas of the United Kingdom. And thirdly, they provide a tourist product, which is absolutely crucial when it comes to visitors. People come to the north of Scotland and I would say to honourable and right honourable members, when you please do come to my part of the world, come and see auntie's fine ceramics in the village of Fearn.
Come and see. Hands stoneware in Lochinver. You won't be disappointed. I'm not going. I wouldn't dare to compete with Stoke on Trent in terms of quality. But we're very proud of what we do. And Doctor Morrison, I'm going to keep my contribution very short because I want to make one point. It's not really pertinent to the minister, but these fledgling and now actually grown up companies very much would not have come into being if it hadn't been for a key decision taken by Harold Wilson's Labour government in the 1960s, which was to put in place the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
This was to encourage enterprise in some of the remotest parts of the UK, and to actually halt and indeed reverse the population. That was the curse of some of the remotest parts of Scotland. That was a great success story and I give credit to where it was due. However, the success story is not today what it once was. This. I warn you, Doctor Morrison is a political point. Part of a point. But sadly, under the.
The stewardship of the Scottish Government, the Development Board now hands. Enterprise is a shadow of what its parent. Once, once upon a time was, and I think that this is a great pity. And while it is not the responsibility of Minister or indeed the UK government, I make. I give due notice that this is a matter I shall continue to raise in the future. Thank you very much for your forbearance.
18:27
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
And not everybody's going to get in at this rate. So 3.5 minutes please. Indicative limit. Gareth Snell thank you very much doctor. A pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Can I thank the honourable gentleman from Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for participating in this debate. Because what he actually demonstrates is something that we've tried to make clear throughout our lobbying on this, that this is not a Stoke on Trent issue. Yes, we are the we are the home, the spiritual home of the pottery industry.
But you will find a ceramics manufacturer in most parts of this country making something beautiful out of dirt, essentially turning, turning clay into art. So the fact that he was able to share that story is very helpful in articulating the points that we're trying to make. And Doctor Morrison, I'd also like to congratulate Hayley for starting the petition. I would like to declare my membership of the GMB and also my chairmanship of the all party parliamentary group for ceramics. I also want to put on record my thanks to Rob fellow from ceramics UK as well as Sharon Yates and Chris, who from the GMB for their sterling work in leading a campaign.
That has got us to this point today and as was said by the honourable gentleman from Stone, this is an industry that employs 2000 people, £2 billion worth to the economy, £600 million worth of exports. That makes it bigger than the fishing industry. And yet the emotive connection to it as a country is not quite as great. So we've still got some work to do, and I'm grateful that the honourable gentleman did pick up on my ceramics. Country of origin bill, I genuinely believe there is a market around the world for quality where made in the UK.
We know it from the advancements that Portmeirion. Tell me about some of the markets they're looking at and potentially bringing work back to the UK for that. For that purpose. We know it from some of the companies in Stoke on Trent who talk about where they export and the value of that export because of that mark on the bottom that says Made in Stoke on Trent. And I hope the Minister can continue in the constructive conversation with me that we've had so far to see how we get that bill over the line within this session.
I want to talk about not just the history, because although we are a city that looks at our history and we take it very seriously, I'm proud to have H. Smith, a tile manufacturer in my constituency that makes tiles for London Underground and celebrating their 100th year. This year I have Emma Bridgewater, who make incredibly well known stoneware. I have Portmeirion, I have, um, halcyon days that make giftware for the House of Lords shops. And the city also gave this place Duchess China.
And of course, if you walk on any of the tiles that are minted, they're made about a mile from where I live. That is the history that we've contributed. But the sector has so much more to offer. You cannot make steel in this country without refractory grade ceramics. You cannot build houses in this country without the bricks. And I would say to the minister, as my hon. Friend has tried to do from Newcastle under Lyme, if we are going to have homes, England subsidise the building of homes in this country.
Can we please mandate that they buy British bricks with that subsidy?It is a huge benefit of taxpayers money going into a British industry to protect British jobs, using a British product. There are obviously also advanced ceramics that we use for defence, for nuclear and for medical technologies, which are leading the way in the way in which we treat people, the way we defend our country and the way that we do some of that green technology advancement. Because, as the minister and I have often discussed, decarbonisation should not mean de-industrialisation, and the ceramic sector is a clear example of where if we get that right, we can show that it works for that proof of concept.
But finally, Doctor Morrison, what I would like to talk about briefly is cbam is an issue. We've got to get that right. The carbon border adjustment mechanism potentially puts the ceramic sector at risk. We are at danger of carbon leakage, and that is not recognised as part of the the scheme coming forward, as was mentioned by my honourable friend from Amber Valley, the dumping of Chinese ware is a problem. So can we look at the way the trade Remedy Alliance Trade Remedies Authority looks at the calculations for injury and can he make sure that in the supercharger scheme that we were debating on Thursday in the German debate, that ceramics is included to protect those jobs for the future?
But you will find a ceramics manufacturer in most parts of this country making something beautiful out of dirt, essentially turning, turning clay into art. So the fact that he was able to share that story is very helpful in articulating the points that we're trying to make. And Doctor Morrison, I'd also like to congratulate Hayley for starting the petition. I would like to declare my membership of the GMB and also my chairmanship of the all party parliamentary group for ceramics. I also want to put on record my thanks to Rob fellow from ceramics UK as well as Sharon Yates and Chris, who from the GMB for their sterling work in leading a campaign.
That has got us to this point today and as was said by the honourable gentleman from Stone, this is an industry that employs 2000 people, £2 billion worth to the economy, £600 million worth of exports. That makes it bigger than the fishing industry. And yet the emotive connection to it as a country is not quite as great. So we've still got some work to do, and I'm grateful that the honourable gentleman did pick up on my ceramics. Country of origin bill, I genuinely believe there is a market around the world for quality where made in the UK.
We know it from the advancements that Portmeirion. Tell me about some of the markets they're looking at and potentially bringing work back to the UK for that. For that purpose. We know it from some of the companies in Stoke on Trent who talk about where they export and the value of that export because of that mark on the bottom that says Made in Stoke on Trent. And I hope the Minister can continue in the constructive conversation with me that we've had so far to see how we get that bill over the line within this session.
I want to talk about not just the history, because although we are a city that looks at our history and we take it very seriously, I'm proud to have H. Smith, a tile manufacturer in my constituency that makes tiles for London Underground and celebrating their 100th year. This year I have Emma Bridgewater, who make incredibly well known stoneware. I have Portmeirion, I have, um, halcyon days that make giftware for the House of Lords shops. And the city also gave this place Duchess China.
And of course, if you walk on any of the tiles that are minted, they're made about a mile from where I live. That is the history that we've contributed. But the sector has so much more to offer. You cannot make steel in this country without refractory grade ceramics. You cannot build houses in this country without the bricks. And I would say to the minister, as my hon. Friend has tried to do from Newcastle under Lyme, if we are going to have homes, England subsidise the building of homes in this country.
Can we please mandate that they buy British bricks with that subsidy?It is a huge benefit of taxpayers money going into a British industry to protect British jobs, using a British product. There are obviously also advanced ceramics that we use for defence, for nuclear and for medical technologies, which are leading the way in the way in which we treat people, the way we defend our country and the way that we do some of that green technology advancement. Because, as the minister and I have often discussed, decarbonisation should not mean de-industrialisation, and the ceramic sector is a clear example of where if we get that right, we can show that it works for that proof of concept.
But finally, Doctor Morrison, what I would like to talk about briefly is cbam is an issue. We've got to get that right. The carbon border adjustment mechanism potentially puts the ceramic sector at risk. We are at danger of carbon leakage, and that is not recognised as part of the the scheme coming forward, as was mentioned by my honourable friend from Amber Valley, the dumping of Chinese ware is a problem. So can we look at the way the trade Remedy Alliance Trade Remedies Authority looks at the calculations for injury and can he make sure that in the supercharger scheme that we were debating on Thursday in the German debate, that ceramics is included to protect those jobs for the future?
18:31
18:31
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Thank you very much, Doctor Morrison, and I'm grateful to my honourable friend for Litchfield for opening this debate. It's fitting that it was opened by good Lord and Honourable Staffordshire Voice. It could be no other way, and like him, I declare an interest as a member of a proud member of the GMB. This debate is personal for those of us who call Staffordshire the best county in England are home, so thank you Hayley for allowing us to be here today. Newcastle, Lyme and North Staffordshire are at the heart of the British and worldwide ceramics industry.
They always have been and they always will be. I welcome the ceramics industry support package £120 million of real and meaningful support for businesses like Silverdale Bathrooms and Ibstock Brickworks in Chesterton. We. We fought hard for this support. Hunting as a pack, a Staffordshire pack with a little bit of Derbyshire and Leicestershire thrown in alongside the mighty Union movement. And as my honourable friend from Stoke Central said, ceramics UK. And I want to thank the Minister.
My hon. Friend who's been a real champion and a solid ally in this effort for generations. People in my community in Newcastle, Lyme have produced the very best British products with skill, with smarts, experience and talent. Their work has powered and fuelled our local and national economies. There will be a theme. Mr. Doctor Morrison, in all the speeches that are given this evening, we welcome the £120 million, but we want to know that that package of support will be quickly and speedily available and widely available at that too.
There will be asked to the government to step up and ensure that this age old and successful industry is protected. There will be calls to ensure that we train and equip our young people in Newcastle. Enlightenment across our country with the skills necessary to enter and thrive in this most important industry. And there will be the important demand that our communities are no longer ignored, forgotten or left behind. As I say, Doctor Morrison Team Hunts is a. Package and all parties and that can be seen tonight.
For too long. Our community is home to. The ceramics industry were let down and left behind by the powerful few. And we are here to change that and change that. We are. I'm the third generation of my family to call home, and I've seen up close the powerful impact this industry has had on our part of the world. I can see its potential to do so in the future, but that requires us to act out of all the sectors that once powered and thrived in industrial heartland ceramics.
Despite building our homes, schools and hospitals has been left behind. We need urgent action on energy bills and the costs associated for businesses in the ceramics industry. We need to ensure that this industry is at the heart of our trade agenda, and we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that we buy British every step of the way. That's why I brought my British back British Bricks bill to Parliament and will continue to push that agenda. The most important point that we must all remember, Doctor Morrison tonight is simple.
The ceramics industry can flourish, it can thrive, and it can continue to lead the world. But it requires the state to act. We aren't asking to be bailed out. We're asking to get the same level of commitment that other industries have received in recent months. The growth potential is massive in this industry, in communities like mine and in our national economy too. So I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to remember now and in the months and years ahead, because we won't be going away and we will not stop making the case for Islamic industry, which has brought such pride and opportunity to communities in the industrial heartlands like mine in Newcastle, under Lyme.
They always have been and they always will be. I welcome the ceramics industry support package £120 million of real and meaningful support for businesses like Silverdale Bathrooms and Ibstock Brickworks in Chesterton. We. We fought hard for this support. Hunting as a pack, a Staffordshire pack with a little bit of Derbyshire and Leicestershire thrown in alongside the mighty Union movement. And as my honourable friend from Stoke Central said, ceramics UK. And I want to thank the Minister.
My hon. Friend who's been a real champion and a solid ally in this effort for generations. People in my community in Newcastle, Lyme have produced the very best British products with skill, with smarts, experience and talent. Their work has powered and fuelled our local and national economies. There will be a theme. Mr. Doctor Morrison, in all the speeches that are given this evening, we welcome the £120 million, but we want to know that that package of support will be quickly and speedily available and widely available at that too.
There will be asked to the government to step up and ensure that this age old and successful industry is protected. There will be calls to ensure that we train and equip our young people in Newcastle. Enlightenment across our country with the skills necessary to enter and thrive in this most important industry. And there will be the important demand that our communities are no longer ignored, forgotten or left behind. As I say, Doctor Morrison Team Hunts is a. Package and all parties and that can be seen tonight.
For too long. Our community is home to. The ceramics industry were let down and left behind by the powerful few. And we are here to change that and change that. We are. I'm the third generation of my family to call home, and I've seen up close the powerful impact this industry has had on our part of the world. I can see its potential to do so in the future, but that requires us to act out of all the sectors that once powered and thrived in industrial heartland ceramics.
Despite building our homes, schools and hospitals has been left behind. We need urgent action on energy bills and the costs associated for businesses in the ceramics industry. We need to ensure that this industry is at the heart of our trade agenda, and we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that we buy British every step of the way. That's why I brought my British back British Bricks bill to Parliament and will continue to push that agenda. The most important point that we must all remember, Doctor Morrison tonight is simple.
The ceramics industry can flourish, it can thrive, and it can continue to lead the world. But it requires the state to act. We aren't asking to be bailed out. We're asking to get the same level of commitment that other industries have received in recent months. The growth potential is massive in this industry, in communities like mine and in our national economy too. So I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to remember now and in the months and years ahead, because we won't be going away and we will not stop making the case for Islamic industry, which has brought such pride and opportunity to communities in the industrial heartlands like mine in Newcastle, under Lyme.
18:35
18:35
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Doctor Morrison. Ceramics are who we are in North Staffordshire. It's in our DNA. It's in the bottle kilns on our skyline. The names above our factory gates. And literally in the hands of the people I proudly represent. Yet for years, people in our communities were told the same story that the industries which built our city belong in the past. The globalisation meant towns like ours simply had to accept decline whilst investment flowed elsewhere.
Now, in May, this Labour government tore up that narrative when it announced the £120 million supporting growth package. It happened because our Labour government listened to me, my North Staffordshire colleagues and the GMB union, and I want to pay particular tribute to Sharon Yates, a GMB member who's with us today, Sharon. Has been absolutely integral to winning this support. Now in my constituency, Doctor Morrison, we know better than most about what's at stake because we've lived it in less than two years. Three fantastic companies in my constituency face an uncertain future.
At Moorcroft, I supported workers at risk of redundancy alongside Sharon, and I am not too proud to say that my emotions got the better of me as I listened to the worries of the 30 workers in that room who collectively had amassed over 800 years of craftsmanship, skills and talents between them. At Royal Stafford, we did the same again. Hundreds of years of skills and talents at risk. Now, these meetings were tough and they were emotional, but they reaffirmed to me the importance of why we had to keep fighting for our pots, because if these companies were allowed to go with them, would also go to skills and talents of our workforce.
And then more recently, Burley, the country's oldest Victorian potbank, was at risk following Denbigh, its owners, falling into administration. But our people. But out there, people know our industry needs protection and people know it has a future step forward. Will Moorcroft, the founder's grandson Cornishware, who stepped in and taken over the Royal Stafford side, and Christopher Bailey, who transformed Burberry pottery into a global fashion brand who amassed a team of investors to keep Burleys kiln firing. The prize is now long term, sustainable, long term sustainability, an industry that stands permanently on a level playing field.
As I look to wind up now, I have two specific questions to pose to the minister. Recently, I met with a number of small ceramics companies in my constituency. They are incredibly pleased with the support package, but can the minister confirm that all companies, both large and small, will benefit from the £120 million package?And will he please come and meet with those companies in my area?Secondly, the government can do more to support our local companies by ensuring that the UK government, its departments and embassies around the world by British.
Therefore, can the Minister look to extend plans for procurement so that Stokie plates, cups and saucers are the only ones we see when we flip them over anywhere we go to close?I'm grateful to the minister because, quite frankly, he understands the sector will keep fighting for more, as we always have. Ceramics is who we are, and our story is far from finished.
Now, in May, this Labour government tore up that narrative when it announced the £120 million supporting growth package. It happened because our Labour government listened to me, my North Staffordshire colleagues and the GMB union, and I want to pay particular tribute to Sharon Yates, a GMB member who's with us today, Sharon. Has been absolutely integral to winning this support. Now in my constituency, Doctor Morrison, we know better than most about what's at stake because we've lived it in less than two years. Three fantastic companies in my constituency face an uncertain future.
At Moorcroft, I supported workers at risk of redundancy alongside Sharon, and I am not too proud to say that my emotions got the better of me as I listened to the worries of the 30 workers in that room who collectively had amassed over 800 years of craftsmanship, skills and talents between them. At Royal Stafford, we did the same again. Hundreds of years of skills and talents at risk. Now, these meetings were tough and they were emotional, but they reaffirmed to me the importance of why we had to keep fighting for our pots, because if these companies were allowed to go with them, would also go to skills and talents of our workforce.
And then more recently, Burley, the country's oldest Victorian potbank, was at risk following Denbigh, its owners, falling into administration. But our people. But out there, people know our industry needs protection and people know it has a future step forward. Will Moorcroft, the founder's grandson Cornishware, who stepped in and taken over the Royal Stafford side, and Christopher Bailey, who transformed Burberry pottery into a global fashion brand who amassed a team of investors to keep Burleys kiln firing. The prize is now long term, sustainable, long term sustainability, an industry that stands permanently on a level playing field.
As I look to wind up now, I have two specific questions to pose to the minister. Recently, I met with a number of small ceramics companies in my constituency. They are incredibly pleased with the support package, but can the minister confirm that all companies, both large and small, will benefit from the £120 million package?And will he please come and meet with those companies in my area?Secondly, the government can do more to support our local companies by ensuring that the UK government, its departments and embassies around the world by British.
Therefore, can the Minister look to extend plans for procurement so that Stokie plates, cups and saucers are the only ones we see when we flip them over anywhere we go to close?I'm grateful to the minister because, quite frankly, he understands the sector will keep fighting for more, as we always have. Ceramics is who we are, and our story is far from finished.
18:38
18:39
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thank you, Doctor Merrison, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And I thank all the people who signed this petition, petition and commend the hard work by my honourable friend for Amber Valley and all who fought hard for Denbigh and indeed for all our ceramics industry in Stoke on Trent South factories like Wedgwood and 19 and 1882 have crafted bespoke projects for centuries. Such as China produces the cups and saucers used here in Parliament. Susan Rose supplied tableware for number ten and Caverswall China craft pieces for Buckingham Palace.
It is no wonder that so many of my constituents take great pride in working in the Pots, and I see that we have pottery workers here today, including my constituent, Sharon Yates, who created the Potters Pledge pledge led by GMB. And I encourage all to sign it to combat the issue of fakes and dumping and dumping. Since being elected, I, along with all my colleagues, have repeatedly raised the importance of ceramic sectors in North Staffordshire to ministers not only to safeguard our tableware sector and proud potters heritage, but also the strategic value of advanced ceramics, which I am pleased now to see included in the British Industrial Competitive Scheme.
Regrettably, companies have faced real challenges. Brexit disrupted trade, there has been an influx of imported knockoffs and energy prices have shot up following the war in Ukraine and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. And I know this petition asks that ceramics is included in the supercharger scheme, and that is an understandable ask. But it does not solely answer all of the challenges faced by the sector, nor does it address the future sustainability and the need for transition to low carbon alternatives. That is why I have previously asked the government to introduce what I dubbed an Industry Energy Innovation Fund, um for gas intensive industries, as well as funding the capital investment for new technology, whether it be electric biofuel or hydrogen kilns.
Such a fund would provide grants or loans to companies to explore process emissions reduction, AI enabled process optimization and processes to recover waste, heat and improve energy efficiency. And this is why I was delighted that the government announced 120 million fund to support the sector in May. Following this announcement, I asked the Chancellor to clarify. The purpose of this fund was to support decarbonisation and innovation, and he confirmed that it was indeed to help the sector tackle energy costs, improve energy efficiency and create a sustainable future.
And alongside Lucideon and Fisk and I want to thank the Henry Royce Institute, the date and David Knowles, um, the TUC, GMB and Russell Hall at Warwick Manufacturing Group for working alongside me to develop proposals as to how we can deliver a sustainable, energy efficient future using this fund. But I do ask the minister if he would ensure that the consultation regarding the design of this fund, as well as the excellent ceramics UK who worked so hard, includes experts such as those mentioned above, as well as variety of SMEs and organisations such as make UK and Glass Futures.
It is no wonder that so many of my constituents take great pride in working in the Pots, and I see that we have pottery workers here today, including my constituent, Sharon Yates, who created the Potters Pledge pledge led by GMB. And I encourage all to sign it to combat the issue of fakes and dumping and dumping. Since being elected, I, along with all my colleagues, have repeatedly raised the importance of ceramic sectors in North Staffordshire to ministers not only to safeguard our tableware sector and proud potters heritage, but also the strategic value of advanced ceramics, which I am pleased now to see included in the British Industrial Competitive Scheme.
Regrettably, companies have faced real challenges. Brexit disrupted trade, there has been an influx of imported knockoffs and energy prices have shot up following the war in Ukraine and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. And I know this petition asks that ceramics is included in the supercharger scheme, and that is an understandable ask. But it does not solely answer all of the challenges faced by the sector, nor does it address the future sustainability and the need for transition to low carbon alternatives. That is why I have previously asked the government to introduce what I dubbed an Industry Energy Innovation Fund, um for gas intensive industries, as well as funding the capital investment for new technology, whether it be electric biofuel or hydrogen kilns.
Such a fund would provide grants or loans to companies to explore process emissions reduction, AI enabled process optimization and processes to recover waste, heat and improve energy efficiency. And this is why I was delighted that the government announced 120 million fund to support the sector in May. Following this announcement, I asked the Chancellor to clarify. The purpose of this fund was to support decarbonisation and innovation, and he confirmed that it was indeed to help the sector tackle energy costs, improve energy efficiency and create a sustainable future.
And alongside Lucideon and Fisk and I want to thank the Henry Royce Institute, the date and David Knowles, um, the TUC, GMB and Russell Hall at Warwick Manufacturing Group for working alongside me to develop proposals as to how we can deliver a sustainable, energy efficient future using this fund. But I do ask the minister if he would ensure that the consultation regarding the design of this fund, as well as the excellent ceramics UK who worked so hard, includes experts such as those mentioned above, as well as variety of SMEs and organisations such as make UK and Glass Futures.
18:40
18:40
18:40
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
A half?As we've already heard today, the ceramics industry is a vital part of British, British Britain's manufacturing heritage and economic future. It supports thousands of skilled jobs, sustains local communities, strengthens domestic supply chains and contributes significantly to our economy. These are highly skilled jobs and preserving that expertise must remain a national priority. But like other energy intensive industries, including in my Mid-cheshire constituency, the ceramic sector has faced significant pressure from high energy costs. Manufacturers are competing in a global marketplace while dealing with energy prices that are often far higher than those faced by international competitors.
Those pressures have placed additional strain on businesses that are already working hard to invest, innovate and plan for the future. And that is why tackling high energy costs and supporting the decarbonisation of energy intensive industries must go hand in hand. These objectives are not in conflict. If we are serious about delivering net zero while maintaining a strong industrial base, we must ensure that the transition protects jobs, skills and domestic production rather than driving investment overseas. While the ceramics industry is concentrated in places such as Staffordshire, the challenges it faces are not unique.
In the north west. Energy intensive industries are grappling with the same pressures of high energy costs. International competition and the need to decarbonise. The question we face is whether we allow these industries to decline, with the resultant impact on the communities around them, or whether we provide them with the tools they need to remain competitive. Hydrogen is one of the tools that we can help achieve that. It offers a credible pathway to reducing emissions from high temperature industrial processes, where electrification is not an option, while preserving the skills, skilled jobs and manufacturing capability on which communities depend.
We can already see that potential here in the UK through the development of the hydrogen cluster in Cheshire. Although centred on the industrial clusters of the North West and North Wales, this project demonstrates what hydrogen can achieve for hard to abate sectors across the United Kingdom, helping manufacturers reduce emissions while remaining competitive and attracting future investment. Whether or not we can realise that potential across the wider North West Staffordshire and indeed the country as a whole is now the key question because we stand at a crossroads as we await publication of the updated hydrogen strategy.
I hope that we make the right choice to bring forward a strategy that backs our industries, for which hydrogen is the only option. Crucially, wherever they are in the country, not simply by picking winners and losers, the North West has seen too many manufacturing sites closed in recent years. We cannot afford to lose more industrial jobs, skills and investment. I therefore hope ministers will publish the updated hydrogen strategy at the earliest opportunity and bring forward a hydrogen network that delivers for the communities we represent.
If we get this right, we will not only support industrial decarbonisation, we will support skilled jobs, unlock private investment and help ensure that British manufacturing continues to thrive for generations to come.
Those pressures have placed additional strain on businesses that are already working hard to invest, innovate and plan for the future. And that is why tackling high energy costs and supporting the decarbonisation of energy intensive industries must go hand in hand. These objectives are not in conflict. If we are serious about delivering net zero while maintaining a strong industrial base, we must ensure that the transition protects jobs, skills and domestic production rather than driving investment overseas. While the ceramics industry is concentrated in places such as Staffordshire, the challenges it faces are not unique.
In the north west. Energy intensive industries are grappling with the same pressures of high energy costs. International competition and the need to decarbonise. The question we face is whether we allow these industries to decline, with the resultant impact on the communities around them, or whether we provide them with the tools they need to remain competitive. Hydrogen is one of the tools that we can help achieve that. It offers a credible pathway to reducing emissions from high temperature industrial processes, where electrification is not an option, while preserving the skills, skilled jobs and manufacturing capability on which communities depend.
We can already see that potential here in the UK through the development of the hydrogen cluster in Cheshire. Although centred on the industrial clusters of the North West and North Wales, this project demonstrates what hydrogen can achieve for hard to abate sectors across the United Kingdom, helping manufacturers reduce emissions while remaining competitive and attracting future investment. Whether or not we can realise that potential across the wider North West Staffordshire and indeed the country as a whole is now the key question because we stand at a crossroads as we await publication of the updated hydrogen strategy.
I hope that we make the right choice to bring forward a strategy that backs our industries, for which hydrogen is the only option. Crucially, wherever they are in the country, not simply by picking winners and losers, the North West has seen too many manufacturing sites closed in recent years. We cannot afford to lose more industrial jobs, skills and investment. I therefore hope ministers will publish the updated hydrogen strategy at the earliest opportunity and bring forward a hydrogen network that delivers for the communities we represent.
If we get this right, we will not only support industrial decarbonisation, we will support skilled jobs, unlock private investment and help ensure that British manufacturing continues to thrive for generations to come.
18:43
18:43
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Thank you, chair. Can I thank the member for Lichfield for his excellent opening speech?My remarks today will be slightly different. They'll focus on studio pottery. This is ceramics made much made on an individual basis, with each piece unique and handmade. Studio pottery is actually growing in popularity in this country, following programs such as the Great Pottery Throwdown, there are literally thousands of makers up and down the country, and the industry in its own right is worth about £50 million.
Pottery and potters are as old as the human race, and although it might not be said to be the oldest profession, it's certainly one of the earliest and chair Britain leads the world in modern studio pottery, which was largely started by Bernard Leach and the Japanese master Hamada in Saint Ives in Cornwall. Many of his techniques came from traditional Japanese techniques and favoured an apprenticeship system. More contemporary and well-known potters such as Grayson Perry and Keith Brymer Jones have all grown from this movement. However, making a living from pottery remains really tough.
Price of clay and energy have increased and most potters earn well below the minimum wage. The Arts Council could really help individual potters, specifically at the beginning of their career, and this would help nurture this industry and also a reduction in VAT on clay would really help small producers. Also, the way apprenticeships and mentoring are run by the HMRC needs a more creative attitude to help help in this industry. In Stroud we have very long running, uh pottery such as Landsdowne pottery, as well as the newer Stroud Pottery and the Clay Loft in Nailsworth provides studio space and tuition for a very popular, um, art form.
Stroud Market provides an excellent place to sell these, uh, these pots. So, but. I will, I will certainly give way.
Pottery and potters are as old as the human race, and although it might not be said to be the oldest profession, it's certainly one of the earliest and chair Britain leads the world in modern studio pottery, which was largely started by Bernard Leach and the Japanese master Hamada in Saint Ives in Cornwall. Many of his techniques came from traditional Japanese techniques and favoured an apprenticeship system. More contemporary and well-known potters such as Grayson Perry and Keith Brymer Jones have all grown from this movement. However, making a living from pottery remains really tough.
Price of clay and energy have increased and most potters earn well below the minimum wage. The Arts Council could really help individual potters, specifically at the beginning of their career, and this would help nurture this industry and also a reduction in VAT on clay would really help small producers. Also, the way apprenticeships and mentoring are run by the HMRC needs a more creative attitude to help help in this industry. In Stroud we have very long running, uh pottery such as Landsdowne pottery, as well as the newer Stroud Pottery and the Clay Loft in Nailsworth provides studio space and tuition for a very popular, um, art form.
Stroud Market provides an excellent place to sell these, uh, these pots. So, but. I will, I will certainly give way.
18:45
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I'm grateful to the honourable member for giving way. And he's making an excellent speech about the importance of continuing the skills and the heritage. And would the honourable member join me in congratulating, um, Fran, Kate and Daisy, who were who were employees of Denby Pottery who have recently set up the Potters Nook in Ripley, where people in my constituency and beyond can go to learn the skills needed for the pottery sector.
18:45
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Can I thank the honourable lady for intervention and certainly developing these potters, these young potters is really essential for the ceramics industry in general, particularly in studio pottery. And can I just say, as a GP, that the therapeutic effects of clay really well documented?I began introducing arts in my surgery in 2001 using ceramics and clay led by Karen Hilliard, helped to relieve stress in patients and I would also like to pay tribute to Jeremy Seward and Petra Reynolds, who work at Wabash Pottery and have remained an inspiration.
But I can't finish without mentioning my daughter Martha, who makes a living from selling her unique pottery in Stroud Market. And although she'll never be rich, she continues to inspire me and many around her with her functional and exquisite ceramics. So, to conclude, this country should be proud of its world famous studio pottery industry that brings employment and joy to so many people. We must do all we can to support this industry and its people.
But I can't finish without mentioning my daughter Martha, who makes a living from selling her unique pottery in Stroud Market. And although she'll never be rich, she continues to inspire me and many around her with her functional and exquisite ceramics. So, to conclude, this country should be proud of its world famous studio pottery industry that brings employment and joy to so many people. We must do all we can to support this industry and its people.
18:46
18:46
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
Thank you, chair, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. I'd like to congratulate the member for Lichfield on securing this debate and for his opening remarks, his strength of feeling and that shown by petitioners, including nearly 800 in my constituency of Broxtowe, just demonstrates how important the ceramics and manufacturing sector is and remains to communities like mine and across the country. And I'd also like to declare that I am a proud member of the GMB. The government has rightly identified advanced manufacturing as a strategic priority for its modern industry strategy.
Manufacturing accounts for nearly 15% of the East Midlands economy, a greater share than any other region in England, £120 million support package for the UK ceramics industry is a welcome example of this government's backing. Manufacturing in the Midlands. Because there are over 450 000 people who are employed in manufacturing across the East Midlands, a significant portion within the ceramics industry. But in other industries and manufacturing industries as well. These are not just jobs, they represent generations of expertise, craftsmanship, industrial knowledge that have been passed down through families and communities of working people across generations.
And Broxtowe still bears the scars of the industrial decline. Parts of Eastwood, a former coalfield community, has never recovered from the loss of traditional industries and secure jobs that they provided. Now, Broxtowe remains a home to major manufacturers, including Reckitt's in Beeston and Corton Engineering in Moorfield More Green. Yet in meetings with both of these companies, they highlighted challenges shared by manufacturers across the country, persistently higher energy costs and the challenge of decarbonising industrial processes while remaining competitive. These pressures are being felt now, so without action, we risk seeing further investment and jobs being moved overseas.
We must ensure that British manufacturers are not placed at a competitive disadvantage. If we are serious about retaining high value industrial jobs. Businesses cannot continue to face energy costs significantly higher than those of their international counterparts and competitors. We must ensure that the infrastructure needed for industrial decarbonisation is in place. Many manufacturers are ready to electrify their operations, but are held back by constraints in local electricity networks and grid capacity. The ceramics industry is rightly highlighted these issues, but the lessons apply across manufacturing industry, across the manufacturing industry.
So I urge the minister to consider expanding eligibility for energy cost relief for manufacturers that fall outside of the existing schemes, and to support investment in local electricity networks and grid capacities to enable industrial decarbonisation by. Supporting energy intensive industries and providing infrastructure, they need to invest. We can protect skilled jobs, strengthen our industrial base and deliver growth in communities that have waited far too long for their share in prosperity.
Manufacturing accounts for nearly 15% of the East Midlands economy, a greater share than any other region in England, £120 million support package for the UK ceramics industry is a welcome example of this government's backing. Manufacturing in the Midlands. Because there are over 450 000 people who are employed in manufacturing across the East Midlands, a significant portion within the ceramics industry. But in other industries and manufacturing industries as well. These are not just jobs, they represent generations of expertise, craftsmanship, industrial knowledge that have been passed down through families and communities of working people across generations.
And Broxtowe still bears the scars of the industrial decline. Parts of Eastwood, a former coalfield community, has never recovered from the loss of traditional industries and secure jobs that they provided. Now, Broxtowe remains a home to major manufacturers, including Reckitt's in Beeston and Corton Engineering in Moorfield More Green. Yet in meetings with both of these companies, they highlighted challenges shared by manufacturers across the country, persistently higher energy costs and the challenge of decarbonising industrial processes while remaining competitive. These pressures are being felt now, so without action, we risk seeing further investment and jobs being moved overseas.
We must ensure that British manufacturers are not placed at a competitive disadvantage. If we are serious about retaining high value industrial jobs. Businesses cannot continue to face energy costs significantly higher than those of their international counterparts and competitors. We must ensure that the infrastructure needed for industrial decarbonisation is in place. Many manufacturers are ready to electrify their operations, but are held back by constraints in local electricity networks and grid capacity. The ceramics industry is rightly highlighted these issues, but the lessons apply across manufacturing industry, across the manufacturing industry.
So I urge the minister to consider expanding eligibility for energy cost relief for manufacturers that fall outside of the existing schemes, and to support investment in local electricity networks and grid capacities to enable industrial decarbonisation by. Supporting energy intensive industries and providing infrastructure, they need to invest. We can protect skilled jobs, strengthen our industrial base and deliver growth in communities that have waited far too long for their share in prosperity.
18:48
18:49
18:49
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Doctor Morrison. And I thank the member for Lichfield for opening the debate. Um, it's been a useful opportunity for us to talk about ceramics. I'm also a member of the GMB. Finally, I want to thank Hayley for the petition inspired by Denby Pottery and the 504 constituents who've signed this for more than two centuries, then b represent the very best of British craftsmanship, with high quality products, skilled jobs and a reputation recognised across the world.
Such an iconic brand for the East Midlands. It's up to us as representatives to keep championing our local manufacturers now and for the future, and I know the work the member for Amber Valley has done with Denby North West. Leicestershire has a proud industrial heritage. Manufacturing remains the largest sectors of employment locally and we're home to major ceramics employers such as Ibstock. Brick is a key part of the sector. I have three Ibstock brick sites and I've been greatly pleased to meet with them on several occasions.
Their quarried and fired directly in North West Leicestershire. We create bricks and material that is used across the country and lasts for hundreds of years, they told me. In recent years, imported bricks have now made up about 20% of the UK brick market. Yet they know that we already have the capacity to supply enough bricks for British homes for the future. So when we talk about concern about ceramics, we need to ensure we're also putting that within the context of industries that ceramics directly supports.
One of them being construction. North West Leicestershire is about 4000 people work in the construction sector as well as national headquarters. A number of prominent housebuilders. We need to be using the industry's strengths that we have right on our doorsteps. British bricks, building homes so the family can thrive alongside our industry. So will the minister set out in his response, how we can make sure that UK brick manufacturers are not only supportive of the challenge they face as an industry, but given the tools to help our house building and industrial targets and their support they need on energy costs and energy transition, every home built creates a job, but it also creates jobs for those businesses that help create a home, filling it with pots and crockery like Denby to Sanitaryware like those mentioned by my hon.
Friend for Lichfield, the petition is right to highlight the importance of protecting not only the jobs but the skills. Once specialist manufacturing skills are lost, they're incredibly difficult to rebuild. We must ensure that future generations have the opportunity to pursue rewarding careers in British industry. I also want to make a nod to Furnace Lane Pottery, based in Moira, a local craft potter, and those are also important to the sector. The government's industrial strategy rightly recognises the importance of manufacturing, but the ceramic industry needs that targeted support.
So I'd like to ask the minister two things. Making sure that 120 million gets to those businesses as quickly as possible. If he can set out a timetable in his response and set out how the government will work with industry, trade unions and local community to ensure that British ceramics has a strong future. Thank you.
Such an iconic brand for the East Midlands. It's up to us as representatives to keep championing our local manufacturers now and for the future, and I know the work the member for Amber Valley has done with Denby North West. Leicestershire has a proud industrial heritage. Manufacturing remains the largest sectors of employment locally and we're home to major ceramics employers such as Ibstock. Brick is a key part of the sector. I have three Ibstock brick sites and I've been greatly pleased to meet with them on several occasions.
Their quarried and fired directly in North West Leicestershire. We create bricks and material that is used across the country and lasts for hundreds of years, they told me. In recent years, imported bricks have now made up about 20% of the UK brick market. Yet they know that we already have the capacity to supply enough bricks for British homes for the future. So when we talk about concern about ceramics, we need to ensure we're also putting that within the context of industries that ceramics directly supports.
One of them being construction. North West Leicestershire is about 4000 people work in the construction sector as well as national headquarters. A number of prominent housebuilders. We need to be using the industry's strengths that we have right on our doorsteps. British bricks, building homes so the family can thrive alongside our industry. So will the minister set out in his response, how we can make sure that UK brick manufacturers are not only supportive of the challenge they face as an industry, but given the tools to help our house building and industrial targets and their support they need on energy costs and energy transition, every home built creates a job, but it also creates jobs for those businesses that help create a home, filling it with pots and crockery like Denby to Sanitaryware like those mentioned by my hon.
Friend for Lichfield, the petition is right to highlight the importance of protecting not only the jobs but the skills. Once specialist manufacturing skills are lost, they're incredibly difficult to rebuild. We must ensure that future generations have the opportunity to pursue rewarding careers in British industry. I also want to make a nod to Furnace Lane Pottery, based in Moira, a local craft potter, and those are also important to the sector. The government's industrial strategy rightly recognises the importance of manufacturing, but the ceramic industry needs that targeted support.
So I'd like to ask the minister two things. Making sure that 120 million gets to those businesses as quickly as possible. If he can set out a timetable in his response and set out how the government will work with industry, trade unions and local community to ensure that British ceramics has a strong future. Thank you.
18:52
18:52
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Mr. Chair. Never say this right. Um, serve under your chairmanship, Doctor Morrison. And I declare my interest as a member of GMB union. But also unite, which is representing so many of the China clay workers in my constituency. And that's one of the reasons, um, chair, that I welcome so warmly this government's £120 million package for the ceramics industry. And I particularly welcome the £60 million of backing for capital investment in energy efficiency and decarbonisation, and that further 60 million for to help manage um, rising costs, which is decisive support for a sector which has every right not just to survive, but to thrive in a changing world in which governments have an absolute obligation to ensure a smooth transition in this world, protecting the supply of China.
Clay is vital to insulating supply chains across not just ceramics, ceramics, but construction. Advanced manufacturing, technology, and aerospace and defense. But domestic production is only truly protected for any industry when the whole supply chain is in my constituency, upstream producers of Cornish China clay are part of that foundation of the ceramics sector, employing directly and indirectly thousands of local people in Cornwall as our strongest current mining industry, serving as a big bridge between our industrial heritage and the mineral products of the future. And I'd like to.
Take a moment to thank the Minister for his excellent leadership in this sector. His lucid understanding of those supply chains, and that minerals represent quite clearly the biggest Cornwall specific growth engine in the years ahead. And I thank him for the work that he's doing together with his department to help unlock the potential of that key industrial cluster for us. But can I ask the minister, will he confirm whether upstream producers, including those that extract China Clay, will be eligible for this support?Uh, will he be able to provide me and my constituents some clarity around when those decisions about who receives this support will be, will be clear?And will he outline what steps he is taking to put an industry with high energy costs, again, ineligible for bic's upstream, um, and facing huge challenges with foreign dumping practices and in many cases, significant environmental and legacy pension liabilities due to the labour intensive nature of this workforce, what steps is he taking to ensure that we put that industry on a more sustainable footing?
Clay is vital to insulating supply chains across not just ceramics, ceramics, but construction. Advanced manufacturing, technology, and aerospace and defense. But domestic production is only truly protected for any industry when the whole supply chain is in my constituency, upstream producers of Cornish China clay are part of that foundation of the ceramics sector, employing directly and indirectly thousands of local people in Cornwall as our strongest current mining industry, serving as a big bridge between our industrial heritage and the mineral products of the future. And I'd like to.
Take a moment to thank the Minister for his excellent leadership in this sector. His lucid understanding of those supply chains, and that minerals represent quite clearly the biggest Cornwall specific growth engine in the years ahead. And I thank him for the work that he's doing together with his department to help unlock the potential of that key industrial cluster for us. But can I ask the minister, will he confirm whether upstream producers, including those that extract China Clay, will be eligible for this support?Uh, will he be able to provide me and my constituents some clarity around when those decisions about who receives this support will be, will be clear?And will he outline what steps he is taking to put an industry with high energy costs, again, ineligible for bic's upstream, um, and facing huge challenges with foreign dumping practices and in many cases, significant environmental and legacy pension liabilities due to the labour intensive nature of this workforce, what steps is he taking to ensure that we put that industry on a more sustainable footing?
18:54
18:54
18:54
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
Thank you, Doctor Morrison. A pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And I'd like to congratulate the petitioner for securing 109 000 signatures on their petition, as well as the honourable member for Lichfield for bringing it before us today. Now, I thought, Mr. Chairman, when I had written a speech about bricks, I was going to be one of the only members to talk about them. But then I noticed the member for North West Leicestershire and the honourable member for Newcastle under Lyme in their places, and realised I was definitely not going to be the first.
Bricks are the nation's favourite bearing building material. They are durable, they are beautiful and they are woven into every constituency across the United Kingdom. Walk through any of our constituencies and you'll be walking past beautiful brick built homes, terraces built to last, many of them over a century old, still standing, still, loved and still lived in. And the piece about being over a century old is the first point that I want to raise to the minister, because in a report published by Create Streets recently, they set out a serious issue when it comes to how we measure carbon in new homes, because the standard assessment assumes that the building will only last.
60 years. As we know, bricks do not last 60 years. Assessor brick over a realistic lifespan, 120 years or more, and they perform significantly better when it comes to whole life carbon. But by baking in a 60 year assumption, the standard systematically make bricks look higher carbon than they are, and fe, the materials that look low carbon on day one, but may need significantly more maintenance, replacement or even demolition early in the planning process. The short termism that is being experienced there is penalising one of the most durable, repairable materials that we have.
This cost is being placed on factories also because, according to reports, domestic production has fallen from about 2 billion bricks not many years ago to 1.3 billion in 2024. That's a 32% reduction in just a few years. Now, the sector supports thousands of skilled jobs and worth over £1 billion. So where we've seen some brick factories closing already, if more follow, we need to make sure that we do not simply import them. Adding risk to the supply chain transport emissions whilst hollowing out our British industry.
This unfortunately, is being made harder, not easier, for British manufacturers. The UK is already the single largest importer of Indian bricks, as we've already heard, and the trade agreement that this government has signed with India will take away the remaining protective tariffs on those bricks imported to zero of. Course.
Bricks are the nation's favourite bearing building material. They are durable, they are beautiful and they are woven into every constituency across the United Kingdom. Walk through any of our constituencies and you'll be walking past beautiful brick built homes, terraces built to last, many of them over a century old, still standing, still, loved and still lived in. And the piece about being over a century old is the first point that I want to raise to the minister, because in a report published by Create Streets recently, they set out a serious issue when it comes to how we measure carbon in new homes, because the standard assessment assumes that the building will only last.
60 years. As we know, bricks do not last 60 years. Assessor brick over a realistic lifespan, 120 years or more, and they perform significantly better when it comes to whole life carbon. But by baking in a 60 year assumption, the standard systematically make bricks look higher carbon than they are, and fe, the materials that look low carbon on day one, but may need significantly more maintenance, replacement or even demolition early in the planning process. The short termism that is being experienced there is penalising one of the most durable, repairable materials that we have.
This cost is being placed on factories also because, according to reports, domestic production has fallen from about 2 billion bricks not many years ago to 1.3 billion in 2024. That's a 32% reduction in just a few years. Now, the sector supports thousands of skilled jobs and worth over £1 billion. So where we've seen some brick factories closing already, if more follow, we need to make sure that we do not simply import them. Adding risk to the supply chain transport emissions whilst hollowing out our British industry.
This unfortunately, is being made harder, not easier, for British manufacturers. The UK is already the single largest importer of Indian bricks, as we've already heard, and the trade agreement that this government has signed with India will take away the remaining protective tariffs on those bricks imported to zero of. Course.
18:57
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you, Doctor Morrison, the honourable. Rightly points out the Indian trade deal. And he's right about the environmental and economic impacts. But there's also the social impacts which is too many of the factories that are making those bricks over in India and in Pakistan are in fact using what we would consider modern slavery and indentured labour and the efficacy of what we're doing also surely ought to be at the forefront of any decision that the minister makes about how we build houses in this country.
18:57
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention. He is correct about the social impacts and the modern slavery elements that we may see in bricks that are coming over from outside of the United Kingdom. In fact, on the Business and Trade Select Committee recently, we heard about how the Modern Slavery Act, introduced many years ago was a good start. Had the full support of the House, but at the same time, the declaration requirements that are within it are not strong enough. A company can say, yes, we are importing things which potentially have a potentially been made via modern slaves, and that is okay.
That is satisfying the requirements. What we need to see here is a new piece of legislation to ensure that companies cannot be importing items that they know or feel have been made using slavery. We also want to come to the question when we talk about bricks, to what the British public actually want to see. Mr. chairman, in visual preference research, bricks were preferred by 60% of the population when asked, compared to proposed buildings, one made out of bricks and one not. That is very, very clear.
Across age, across gender, across religion and across political affiliations. At the very moment where we're trying to build more homes, we're pushing developers away from building the material that the majority of the British public want to live in. And brick makers are caught in the same trap as the whole of the ceramic sector. Firing clay takes enormous heat, and that heat comes from gas. But because the government's flagship energy relief policy is designed around gas, intensive makers are largely excluded. So the same industry is squeezed from multiple directions, penalising carbon accounting for undervaluing its products, shutting out suppliers in the United Kingdom and favouring suppliers overseas.
And then the energy intensive issue. So I have four questions to ask the minister. Firstly, I ask if he will work with colleagues across government to review the 60 year reference period for whole life carbon assessments, adopting a longer, more realistic lifespan. So we do not create a de facto ban on bricks by accident. Secondly, will he commit the government to commit the government that sustainability standards will not rule out quality, durability or repairable materials that people love?Thirdly, asking the minister to support cleaner brick production here at home rather than importing them from overseas, and the jobs and the emissions being sent abroad.
And fourthly, will the gas intensive brick and ceramics industry finally be brought into the proper support that they need via the government's supercharge scheme, so these firms can compete on a level playing field because bricks. Mr. chair, are not relics. They are well used. They are beautiful, they are durable, they are repairable, and they are genuinely part of what makes Britain great. We should be building more homes and neighborhoods that last for our children and our grandchildren, and we should stop penalising the material.
That is exactly that.
That is satisfying the requirements. What we need to see here is a new piece of legislation to ensure that companies cannot be importing items that they know or feel have been made using slavery. We also want to come to the question when we talk about bricks, to what the British public actually want to see. Mr. chairman, in visual preference research, bricks were preferred by 60% of the population when asked, compared to proposed buildings, one made out of bricks and one not. That is very, very clear.
Across age, across gender, across religion and across political affiliations. At the very moment where we're trying to build more homes, we're pushing developers away from building the material that the majority of the British public want to live in. And brick makers are caught in the same trap as the whole of the ceramic sector. Firing clay takes enormous heat, and that heat comes from gas. But because the government's flagship energy relief policy is designed around gas, intensive makers are largely excluded. So the same industry is squeezed from multiple directions, penalising carbon accounting for undervaluing its products, shutting out suppliers in the United Kingdom and favouring suppliers overseas.
And then the energy intensive issue. So I have four questions to ask the minister. Firstly, I ask if he will work with colleagues across government to review the 60 year reference period for whole life carbon assessments, adopting a longer, more realistic lifespan. So we do not create a de facto ban on bricks by accident. Secondly, will he commit the government to commit the government that sustainability standards will not rule out quality, durability or repairable materials that people love?Thirdly, asking the minister to support cleaner brick production here at home rather than importing them from overseas, and the jobs and the emissions being sent abroad.
And fourthly, will the gas intensive brick and ceramics industry finally be brought into the proper support that they need via the government's supercharge scheme, so these firms can compete on a level playing field because bricks. Mr. chair, are not relics. They are well used. They are beautiful, they are durable, they are repairable, and they are genuinely part of what makes Britain great. We should be building more homes and neighborhoods that last for our children and our grandchildren, and we should stop penalising the material.
That is exactly that.
19:00
19:00
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Thank you very much, Doctor Myerson. And I have to say that it's an honour to follow such an interesting speech about about bricks. And, uh, can I start by congratulating Hayley and all the other petitioners and the Petitions Committee itself, the member for Lichfield, for bringing this important issue into Parliament this afternoon, because it has been a really interesting debate, and I think it's fair to say that the efforts that the petitioners have made have really made sure that the concerns of workers, the concerns of manufacturers, the concerns of suppliers, local communities that depend on the ceramics industry have truly been heard in Parliament this afternoon.
And it's clear that the ceramics sector is facing a number of existential pressures, including and in particular, their high energy costs, but also burdensome regulation and rising labour costs. And we've heard a range of very valuable contributions from honourable members this afternoon, and it has truly come across how important this industry is, not just in Staffordshire, but in many other parts of the UK. And I was fascinated to hear about Scotland and Cornwall and Stroud and the number of businesses in the ceramics sector, and very welcome to hear from my right hon.
Friend from Stone, Great Worley and Penkridge, who made a powerful contribution on behalf of a sector where he has first hand experience working. And so what I think what we learnt, Doctor Morrison, is that. The ceramics industry is not simply another manufacturing sector. It's a source of highly skilled employment. It's a proud part of our industrial heritage. And it's a significant contributor to our economy. And for generations, British ceramics have been recognised all around the world for their quality, for their craftsmanship, for their innovation.
But it's clear that the industry faces particular challenges because it's particularly energy intensive. The high temperatures that kilns need means that the industry cannot simply find at short notice alternative sources of energy, or switch on and off when prices fluctuate. They are uniquely exposed to very high energy costs. And so the recent challenges facing well-known firms within the industry should serve as a warning. Now, the supercharger scheme is a sticking plaster. It is a sticking plaster on the damage which has been caused by the Energy Secretary's net zero policies, which have driven up the cost of energy, piling them onto businesses.
And because of the costs of net zero, this government has imposed on the businesses themselves, they have been required to come forward with £120 million subsidy for the industry. I won't give way. Given how tight we've been for time, but on this side, I hope members will welcome that. We have a clear and credible plan to cut energy bills to reduce regulation and to lower taxes. We have a cheap power plan that will will cut household energy bills by £200 a year.
It will cut electricity bills by 20% for businesses that could save ceramics businesses a large amount of money. Save the average restaurant £5,500. The average pub one and a 1.101 £1,100. And we would achieve this by axing the carbon tax in full, including the UK Emissions Trading Scheme and carbon price support. We would also scrap the Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme, which would free up money currently being used to fund those payments through general taxation, and we will back the North Sea and get Britain drilling again, unlocking home grown energy and generating an estimated 2.5 billion in additional tax revenues each year.
And it's clear that the ceramics sector is facing a number of existential pressures, including and in particular, their high energy costs, but also burdensome regulation and rising labour costs. And we've heard a range of very valuable contributions from honourable members this afternoon, and it has truly come across how important this industry is, not just in Staffordshire, but in many other parts of the UK. And I was fascinated to hear about Scotland and Cornwall and Stroud and the number of businesses in the ceramics sector, and very welcome to hear from my right hon.
Friend from Stone, Great Worley and Penkridge, who made a powerful contribution on behalf of a sector where he has first hand experience working. And so what I think what we learnt, Doctor Morrison, is that. The ceramics industry is not simply another manufacturing sector. It's a source of highly skilled employment. It's a proud part of our industrial heritage. And it's a significant contributor to our economy. And for generations, British ceramics have been recognised all around the world for their quality, for their craftsmanship, for their innovation.
But it's clear that the industry faces particular challenges because it's particularly energy intensive. The high temperatures that kilns need means that the industry cannot simply find at short notice alternative sources of energy, or switch on and off when prices fluctuate. They are uniquely exposed to very high energy costs. And so the recent challenges facing well-known firms within the industry should serve as a warning. Now, the supercharger scheme is a sticking plaster. It is a sticking plaster on the damage which has been caused by the Energy Secretary's net zero policies, which have driven up the cost of energy, piling them onto businesses.
And because of the costs of net zero, this government has imposed on the businesses themselves, they have been required to come forward with £120 million subsidy for the industry. I won't give way. Given how tight we've been for time, but on this side, I hope members will welcome that. We have a clear and credible plan to cut energy bills to reduce regulation and to lower taxes. We have a cheap power plan that will will cut household energy bills by £200 a year.
It will cut electricity bills by 20% for businesses that could save ceramics businesses a large amount of money. Save the average restaurant £5,500. The average pub one and a 1.101 £1,100. And we would achieve this by axing the carbon tax in full, including the UK Emissions Trading Scheme and carbon price support. We would also scrap the Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme, which would free up money currently being used to fund those payments through general taxation, and we will back the North Sea and get Britain drilling again, unlocking home grown energy and generating an estimated 2.5 billion in additional tax revenues each year.
19:04
19:05
19:05
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I'm just wondering because because because we've heard a lot from the the honourable lady's parties on their, uh, on their cheap power plan. Can I just check, though, from, from the ceramics sector perspective, is it her intention that the gas drilled from the North Sea would be specifically ring fenced and sold at a below market price to the sectors like the ceramics sector in Stoke on Trent and around the country. In order to benefit from that, or would they still be subject to that gas being sold to them via the international market.
19:05
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Would mean that we would have to import less from countries outside the UK, because we would have our own supply at that point. Now, I don't want to. I don't want to. I don't want to intrude on the arguments within the governing party, but I just call out the fact that that it doesn't make sense to leave our own gas in the ground. These are precisely the kinds of policies, the policies I've been outlining that the energy intensive sectors, such as ceramics, have been calling for.
If we're serious about protecting the British ceramics industry, we need to act now to cut the cost of industrial energy. So I'm going to ask the minister a couple of questions. We've heard a bit about the challenge from imports, so it'd be interesting to hear from him what representations this industry has made to the Trade Remedies Authority. And I would also ask him directly whether the government would support the cheap power plan that would cut business energy costs and therefore abandon the ideological policies that are driving proud sectors, such as ceramics, into decline.
Because the future of a great British industry and all the livelihoods that it supports, are too important to ignore.
If we're serious about protecting the British ceramics industry, we need to act now to cut the cost of industrial energy. So I'm going to ask the minister a couple of questions. We've heard a bit about the challenge from imports, so it'd be interesting to hear from him what representations this industry has made to the Trade Remedies Authority. And I would also ask him directly whether the government would support the cheap power plan that would cut business energy costs and therefore abandon the ideological policies that are driving proud sectors, such as ceramics, into decline.
Because the future of a great British industry and all the livelihoods that it supports, are too important to ignore.
19:06
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Minister, thank you very much. Doctor Murison, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Um, and I think, uh, I'd like to take this moment to thank everybody who's contributed to the debate. And I hope that those people observing us from the public gallery today, um, will have seen, they have seen, I'm sure that there is huge support in Parliament for the ceramics industry, for them, for their communities, and for their jobs as well. And I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend the member for Lichfield for securing the debate, but of course, I'm incredibly grateful to Hayley as well, um, for organising the petition.
Um, and I'm sure that many of her petitioners will have been following following this debate. And they will also have seen, um, the support here of members in this room, but will have heard of the support of ceramics UK and the GMB trade union as well, um for the sector and of course um there have been a number of speeches around a number of issues and I will endeavour to try and address all of those issues. But if I think if I summed up the entire debate in one line, it was probably put best by, um or more succinctly by the member for Newcastle under Lyme, which was essentially thank you for the 120 million.
Can I have some more to to which I have a short answer, which is you're welcome. And I want to do more. So maybe I can just talk a bit about what that more might be, but also address some of the issues that were concerned, because I do recognise that more needs to be done now. The pride, I think, the pride of the communities that we've heard today is very important to recognise because the ceramics industry is integral to the history and heritage of so many communities from around the whole country.
And of course, Staffordshire is the home of the ceramics industry, but it spans the whole country. And we heard that it takes in, of course, the China clay pits um in Cornwall, right up to the communities of the north of Scotland as well. And it represents a very diverse range of subsectors bricks, pipes, tiles and tableware, of course, and advanced technical ceramics with many applications in, in sectors such as energy, defence, medical and technology. But today I'm most grateful for the application in air conditioning filtration system.
So thank you ceramic industry for that. But of course, the ceramics industry represents some great traditional and heritage tableware as well. And I think it's very much very possible to, to value things not only for the utility, but for their beauty. As we heard from the member for Stroud. Um, so I will reveal I am quite a fan of, um, traditional traditional Staffordshire stoneware, but I also have a very special Dunoon mug with a Union Jack on it. And I just want to, um, let, let the public gallery know that I use it every morning for my first cup of tea as well.
Now, we heard from the member for North Stafford um about uh the, the lifetime assessment of bricks. And we also heard that um from the front bench spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats as well. And I just want to be clear that I am very aware of the disadvantage, um, that is placed on bricks with a short lifetime assessment. I have bricks in my house that are over 200 years old and doing very sterling service. So I am interested to hear more from representation from members around the House about that issue.
And of course, we've talked a lot about ceramics, but the member for Broxtowe, I think, made a much wider point about manufacturing in in in her area in the East Midlands. And actually the issues facing ceramics are issues that have faced manufacturing industries around the country. Um, high energy costs, import of cheap goods, challenges with decarbonisation. And these challenges have been exacerbated by the geopolitical instability that we've seen due to the invasion of Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, which have put pressure on our energy prices, and now the ceramics industry has continued to demonstrate resilience.
The people who work in the industry have demonstrated resilience. But I was very sad recently to learn of the closure of the job losses at Denby Pottery, an area on which I worked closely with the member for Amber Valley and which she represented so well here, but also the closure of a tunnel kiln at Armitage Shanks as well. Um, and and I personally want to pass on my sympathies to all workers, families and local communities that were impacted by those firms, but also, as we heard at Royal Stafford and Heraldic Pottery as well.
Now manufacturing has now ceased at Denby Pottery, and the administrators were unable to find a buyer. And my officials at the Department for Business and Trade worked diligently with the administrators as to take forward the process. The government's priority now is to ensure that all affected workers are given the support that they need, and I would like to commend Fran, Kate and Daisy as we heard and wish them every success with their new venture. Um, and I realize that the words that I've said may sound somewhat clinical to workers and communities who are so rightly proud of Denbigh.
And so I want to really take this opportunity to say how sorrowful I am that denby's clause, and that those workers and the local community can no longer work there. And that's why I'm so determined that we will fix some of the problems with the underpinning of the business environment, not only for ceramics, but other parts of industry as well. And so we move on to the Ceramic Support Industry Support Scheme, which was mentioned by so many members. The member for Amber Valley thanked many, many people, um, in the creation of that scheme.
Our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer played such an important role, but she wasn't able to thank herself. And so I'd like to thank her on behalf of all of us. Um, because I do wonder if that scheme would have been brought forward so speedily if it wasn't for the work that she'd done. And I think the important thing here is to recognise is it's a great vote of confidence by government in the ceramics industry. It's an industry that we are determined to work with, to support in decarbonisation.
And I want to thank all of my parliamentary colleagues who advocated for it. A number of people raised issues around the design of the scheme. My hon. Friend the member for Stoke on Trent North. My hon. Friend the member for Stoke on Trent, South around eligibility and consultees and so on, and I, I want to reassure them that we are determined that the scheme will have the maximum eligibility to enable firms to win support, both for capital and operating expenses around their decarbonisation, and to make that decarbonisation makes sense as well.
And perhaps this is an opportune time really to um to firmly put down some of the myths, um, that around government policy, pushing up the price of electricity. Um, of course that's not the case at all. Um the UK was left in a position after the previous government of high electricity costs, both for industry and for domestic consumers, because our electricity market is dependent on the price of gas, the cheapest form of electricity we have is solar. The second cheapest is onshore wind. The third cheapest is offshore wind.
And that's why the government's Clean Power 2030 mission is designed specifically to give this country a competitive advantage, a strategic competitive advantage in electricity price from the 2030s onwards. But it's managing that period from now to 2030. That is particularly challenging because during that period of time, our electricity is still set to a great extent by by the gas price. And so for economic reasons alone and to ensure we have a competitive business environment, we need to work through that. Yes, I'd be happy to give way.
Um, and I'm sure that many of her petitioners will have been following following this debate. And they will also have seen, um, the support here of members in this room, but will have heard of the support of ceramics UK and the GMB trade union as well, um for the sector and of course um there have been a number of speeches around a number of issues and I will endeavour to try and address all of those issues. But if I think if I summed up the entire debate in one line, it was probably put best by, um or more succinctly by the member for Newcastle under Lyme, which was essentially thank you for the 120 million.
Can I have some more to to which I have a short answer, which is you're welcome. And I want to do more. So maybe I can just talk a bit about what that more might be, but also address some of the issues that were concerned, because I do recognise that more needs to be done now. The pride, I think, the pride of the communities that we've heard today is very important to recognise because the ceramics industry is integral to the history and heritage of so many communities from around the whole country.
And of course, Staffordshire is the home of the ceramics industry, but it spans the whole country. And we heard that it takes in, of course, the China clay pits um in Cornwall, right up to the communities of the north of Scotland as well. And it represents a very diverse range of subsectors bricks, pipes, tiles and tableware, of course, and advanced technical ceramics with many applications in, in sectors such as energy, defence, medical and technology. But today I'm most grateful for the application in air conditioning filtration system.
So thank you ceramic industry for that. But of course, the ceramics industry represents some great traditional and heritage tableware as well. And I think it's very much very possible to, to value things not only for the utility, but for their beauty. As we heard from the member for Stroud. Um, so I will reveal I am quite a fan of, um, traditional traditional Staffordshire stoneware, but I also have a very special Dunoon mug with a Union Jack on it. And I just want to, um, let, let the public gallery know that I use it every morning for my first cup of tea as well.
Now, we heard from the member for North Stafford um about uh the, the lifetime assessment of bricks. And we also heard that um from the front bench spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats as well. And I just want to be clear that I am very aware of the disadvantage, um, that is placed on bricks with a short lifetime assessment. I have bricks in my house that are over 200 years old and doing very sterling service. So I am interested to hear more from representation from members around the House about that issue.
And of course, we've talked a lot about ceramics, but the member for Broxtowe, I think, made a much wider point about manufacturing in in in her area in the East Midlands. And actually the issues facing ceramics are issues that have faced manufacturing industries around the country. Um, high energy costs, import of cheap goods, challenges with decarbonisation. And these challenges have been exacerbated by the geopolitical instability that we've seen due to the invasion of Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, which have put pressure on our energy prices, and now the ceramics industry has continued to demonstrate resilience.
The people who work in the industry have demonstrated resilience. But I was very sad recently to learn of the closure of the job losses at Denby Pottery, an area on which I worked closely with the member for Amber Valley and which she represented so well here, but also the closure of a tunnel kiln at Armitage Shanks as well. Um, and and I personally want to pass on my sympathies to all workers, families and local communities that were impacted by those firms, but also, as we heard at Royal Stafford and Heraldic Pottery as well.
Now manufacturing has now ceased at Denby Pottery, and the administrators were unable to find a buyer. And my officials at the Department for Business and Trade worked diligently with the administrators as to take forward the process. The government's priority now is to ensure that all affected workers are given the support that they need, and I would like to commend Fran, Kate and Daisy as we heard and wish them every success with their new venture. Um, and I realize that the words that I've said may sound somewhat clinical to workers and communities who are so rightly proud of Denbigh.
And so I want to really take this opportunity to say how sorrowful I am that denby's clause, and that those workers and the local community can no longer work there. And that's why I'm so determined that we will fix some of the problems with the underpinning of the business environment, not only for ceramics, but other parts of industry as well. And so we move on to the Ceramic Support Industry Support Scheme, which was mentioned by so many members. The member for Amber Valley thanked many, many people, um, in the creation of that scheme.
Our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer played such an important role, but she wasn't able to thank herself. And so I'd like to thank her on behalf of all of us. Um, because I do wonder if that scheme would have been brought forward so speedily if it wasn't for the work that she'd done. And I think the important thing here is to recognise is it's a great vote of confidence by government in the ceramics industry. It's an industry that we are determined to work with, to support in decarbonisation.
And I want to thank all of my parliamentary colleagues who advocated for it. A number of people raised issues around the design of the scheme. My hon. Friend the member for Stoke on Trent North. My hon. Friend the member for Stoke on Trent, South around eligibility and consultees and so on, and I, I want to reassure them that we are determined that the scheme will have the maximum eligibility to enable firms to win support, both for capital and operating expenses around their decarbonisation, and to make that decarbonisation makes sense as well.
And perhaps this is an opportune time really to um to firmly put down some of the myths, um, that around government policy, pushing up the price of electricity. Um, of course that's not the case at all. Um the UK was left in a position after the previous government of high electricity costs, both for industry and for domestic consumers, because our electricity market is dependent on the price of gas, the cheapest form of electricity we have is solar. The second cheapest is onshore wind. The third cheapest is offshore wind.
And that's why the government's Clean Power 2030 mission is designed specifically to give this country a competitive advantage, a strategic competitive advantage in electricity price from the 2030s onwards. But it's managing that period from now to 2030. That is particularly challenging because during that period of time, our electricity is still set to a great extent by by the gas price. And so for economic reasons alone and to ensure we have a competitive business environment, we need to work through that. Yes, I'd be happy to give way.
19:14
19:14
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Um, thank you doctor. Yes of course. And this also replaced some of the conversations that we've had on the floor of the House as well. And ultimately, it's important to remember that the prices that we're quoting take into account both the capital and operating costs and our existing gas fleet also would require renewal if it was to continue beyond the mid 2030s. And there would therefore be a capital and operating cost element for that as well. There's last, last intervention.
I'll just take it.
I'll just take it.
19:15
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My disbelief that the Tories continue to trot out this line that we're auctioning off wind power at a high price, while simultaneously neglecting to mention the levelized cost of electricity for thermal power, which is at least as high and takes a lot longer to deploy. So let's bust that myth once and for all, shall we?
19:15
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Um, well, I thank my honourable friend. He put it exactly right. We need to take both capital and operating costs into account for this. But fundamentally, it comes down to a belief or a view, or in my case, a sort of looking at the economic evidence. And corporate finance. Is it possible to decarbonise and reindustrialize?Yes, of course it is. And that's precisely what we want to do. There's no one in industry asking for us to tear up climate policy.
They're using it to invest, and they've invested 100 billion since the general election. On the basis of that, now, many people mentioned the supercharger scheme. It currently supports around 10% of the ceramics industry. I realize that's not, uh, well, I realize it's 10%. It's not 100%, quite obviously. But the recent uplift in the scheme to 90% has has benefited those members. And of course, the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme will offer further support on advanced and technical ceramics from 2027, but backdated for the current year.
Reducing electricity bills by up to £40 per per megawatt hour. Now I'm going to continue, but I'm going to address a point that the right hon. Member for Stone Ridge raised, and I think he focused very much on those parts of the sector that are unable to electrify. I'm very concerned about that as well. So larger brick kilns or indeed the member for Litchfield Sanitaryware in his constituency, some of those items are very difficult to electrify. The main decarbonisation options on the table are probably hydrogen or biogas, which wasn't mentioned today, but potentially could be a solution.
But it's important that the businesses remain competitive and also able to raise the capital until such a period of time. So I want to reassure him. I'm very focused on that. I am not pretending that um. Processes that can't be electrified can be, but it's electrification first where that can happen. But I realise I do need to work with the the brick sector and others, and I'm concerned currently about capacity utilisation in the brick sector, which was something other people mentioned, because of course it makes everything much more difficult.
Um, now many people talked about in relation to international trade, I think, or I presume that all of us in this room are in favour of free trade on a level playing field basis. Um, but it was unfair trade that I think was referred to particularly. And again, this is this can be an issue of energy where um companies in countries overseas have access to um energy from sources that we wouldn't use in the UK, such as Russian gas or, or have inappropriate, uh, labour practices as we've heard as well.
Um, and clearly those when, when we take a decision to enter into a free trade scheme and choose to liberalize tariffs, the government is always very cognizant of the overall economic benefit to the country. But ultimately we do, we do want, um, free trade. And the shadow Minister did ask about um interaction with the Trade Remedies Authority, which is our means of correcting that. And I'm incredibly keen to continue to encourage the sector to engage with the Trade Remedies Authority. If there are any difficulties with that, I want to know about it.
Um, go on. I shall allow one more intervention.
They're using it to invest, and they've invested 100 billion since the general election. On the basis of that, now, many people mentioned the supercharger scheme. It currently supports around 10% of the ceramics industry. I realize that's not, uh, well, I realize it's 10%. It's not 100%, quite obviously. But the recent uplift in the scheme to 90% has has benefited those members. And of course, the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme will offer further support on advanced and technical ceramics from 2027, but backdated for the current year.
Reducing electricity bills by up to £40 per per megawatt hour. Now I'm going to continue, but I'm going to address a point that the right hon. Member for Stone Ridge raised, and I think he focused very much on those parts of the sector that are unable to electrify. I'm very concerned about that as well. So larger brick kilns or indeed the member for Litchfield Sanitaryware in his constituency, some of those items are very difficult to electrify. The main decarbonisation options on the table are probably hydrogen or biogas, which wasn't mentioned today, but potentially could be a solution.
But it's important that the businesses remain competitive and also able to raise the capital until such a period of time. So I want to reassure him. I'm very focused on that. I am not pretending that um. Processes that can't be electrified can be, but it's electrification first where that can happen. But I realise I do need to work with the the brick sector and others, and I'm concerned currently about capacity utilisation in the brick sector, which was something other people mentioned, because of course it makes everything much more difficult.
Um, now many people talked about in relation to international trade, I think, or I presume that all of us in this room are in favour of free trade on a level playing field basis. Um, but it was unfair trade that I think was referred to particularly. And again, this is this can be an issue of energy where um companies in countries overseas have access to um energy from sources that we wouldn't use in the UK, such as Russian gas or, or have inappropriate, uh, labour practices as we've heard as well.
Um, and clearly those when, when we take a decision to enter into a free trade scheme and choose to liberalize tariffs, the government is always very cognizant of the overall economic benefit to the country. But ultimately we do, we do want, um, free trade. And the shadow Minister did ask about um interaction with the Trade Remedies Authority, which is our means of correcting that. And I'm incredibly keen to continue to encourage the sector to engage with the Trade Remedies Authority. If there are any difficulties with that, I want to know about it.
Um, go on. I shall allow one more intervention.
19:19
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Honourable gentleman did ask for information about a problem, so could I just let him know that the investigation process for calculating injury is incredibly arduous?I believe in the last investigation, only two companies were able to take part because of the demands that were placed upon them, both bureaucratically and in cost. So simplifying that process, the investigation would allow more companies to participate and provide evidence so that the better the relief that was then given by the Tra would be much more in line with what the sector and the economy needs.
19:19
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
I think, is. Is intervention. It's a very reasonable point. The Trade Remedies Authority has taken some steps recently to try and speed up and reduce the cost of the process, though I do understand it's particularly difficult in this sector, where there are so many small businesses. That's often where a trade association might have a role, but I will continue to work with the sector to understand their issues there and to help encourage and support them to take a case to the Trade Remedies Authority, where they feel that their unfair trading practices.
Um, the member for Stockton South Central has just spoken. He thanked me for my engagement on his private member's bill. I can assure him I will continue to engage with him on his on his private member's bill.
Um, the member for Stockton South Central has just spoken. He thanked me for my engagement on his private member's bill. I can assure him I will continue to engage with him on his on his private member's bill.
19:20
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
On his private member's bill. Industry has, of course, faced many. You know, great difficulties in the business environment, as many of our manufacturing industries have. And so the measures that we are taking to support the business environment, I am sure, will support other parts of our manufacturing sector as well, because just as people in the Potteries are proud to be potters, so people in other manufacturing areas in the country.
19:20
19:34
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
Thank you very much. Doctor Morrison. And I won't detain members for very much longer. And now earlier, the member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, um, mentioned, uh, Harold Wilson, former prime minister, of course, and Wilson did many great things indeed. But one thing that he did was have an extremely strong focus on British manufacturing. And as we heard from the member for Lichfield, um, he talked about the moment that we have now for Reindustrialisation. Um and unashamedly I lay claim to having introduced that word into the lexicon recently, and I'm delighted at how quickly it's caught on.
But there are a few more words I would like to introduce and hope that people might follow me as well. And these are about increasing British productive capacity, improving British productivity, increasing our exports and our balance of trade to improve our manufacturing competitiveness, competitiveness so that we reindustrialize so that we provide good jobs for working people, so that we put pride back in working communities around the country. And in the case of the ceramics industry, I'm very much looking forward to working with parliamentary colleagues to ensure that this industry continues to be a great British industry into the future.
But there are a few more words I would like to introduce and hope that people might follow me as well. And these are about increasing British productive capacity, improving British productivity, increasing our exports and our balance of trade to improve our manufacturing competitiveness, competitiveness so that we reindustrialize so that we provide good jobs for working people, so that we put pride back in working communities around the country. And in the case of the ceramics industry, I'm very much looking forward to working with parliamentary colleagues to ensure that this industry continues to be a great British industry into the future.
19:35
19:35
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Thank you, Doctor Morrison. Um, pleasure to be able to sum up this debate. Um, if I can, um I'm actually going to go a little bit out of order with my thanks to honourable members for their contribution, because I do want to start with my honourable friend from Amber Valley. Um, it's been an incredibly, incredibly difficult year for her constituents and for her. And, um, throughout all of it, I know I've been proud to call her a friend, um, throughout all of the difficulty that she will have faced.
Um, and she does great credit to her constituents and this House by her hard work in this area. Um, moving on to the other contributions, the Right Honourable member for Stone, Great Willie and Pancreas. Um, again, yet another time when we've come to a debate and we are again, forcefully agreeing on the same points. Normal service will be resumed very soon. Um, but the points he made about identity and the need to increase exports are well met. And I'm sure.
Common to many of the people in the chamber today. The honourable member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross again was really, um, quite right to bring up the idea of the high skilled jobs that the ceramics industry provides. And actually the link to his visitor economy. Although if he does want me to go that far north, he might have to take me to a distillery as well. Um, to my hon. Friends for Stoke on Trent, Central. Newcastle under Lyme, Stoke on Trent North and Stoke on Trent South.
Um, you can never expect to come to one of these debates and not hear um the Stokies and Newcastle under Lyme coming at you with the importance of ceramics to their area and the, the centrality of it to both the North Staffordshire identity and to its economy. But it was also fantastic to hear them talking about advanced industry, advanced ceramics, about the growth potential of the industry and actually how the government can support that through better procurement and through, um, action on back stamping. Um, the honourable member for Mid Cheshire, again, focus on job skills and growth and the fact that the ceramics industry is not just, um, someplace we need to help is actually if we can get the support right, it can drive our economy going forwards into this century and beyond.
Um, the honourable member for Stroud speech was excellent. I thought, in showing that these are not the jobs of last resort. People want to work with their hands. People want to make things. People want to work with ceramics. And I think, again, being able for us to say that we're going to support this industry, we're going to drive this industry forward and provide those high skilled, high quality jobs that people really want to be involved with. Um, would be remiss for me to not remark on the honourable member for Broxtowe, my honourable friend for Broxtowe.
Again, really important to raise the £120 million package that the government announced. And also to talk about the identity of place that comes with and I'm I'm actually unaware of any other industry that has that identity of place being so linked into the industry, which supports it. Um, my hon. Friend for North West Leicestershire, um, wouldn't expect to do a ceramics debate without her talking about bricks. Um and not just bricks and the importance of bricks and the importance of those jobs that it brings to her area, but the importance of the industries that ceramics support, particularly in construction.
Uh, my hon. Friend for Saint Austell and Newquay, again, uh, mentioning over this side, you've moved. Um, raising, yes, £120 million support package. But it was also fantastic to hear somebody else talking about the impact that dumping has on the ceramics industry. Uh, we made thanks to the Lib Dem spokesperson for again, talking about bricks. Um, I think the point he made about the assessment of carbon costs is really valuable, especially when we talk about the quality that he was talking about.
120 years might be more appropriate for a brick. That might be true for an international brick. I think the bricks that are made in the UK, because they are of such high quality. 120 years is very, very, very conservative. As an estimate, the Right Honourable member for West Worcestershire, um, I. Took down a quote that she said it. This is not just another sector. And I think anybody who's been here today can really understand this is not just another sector.
It is recognised the world over for exactly that quality that I mentioned. And it was fantastic to see that, um, we do significantly disagree on the myth that North Sea gas will cuts on gas, but fortunately, I expect to have many more opportunities to rehearse that until we finally get that party to see sense. Um, finally to the minister, to the member for Stockton North, um, I think he will eventually become sick of the sight of us all banging down his door to talk about ceramics. Um, I don't care.
Um, but I would also be remiss of me not to remark on his willingness to work with MPs, to work with parliamentarians, to be listening, and actually to take that listening and turn it into action. And we're still not we're still clearly not there with the design of the scheme still clearly not there. And we're not going to go away and we're going to keep asking for more. And I think his quote about the honourable member for Newcastle under Lyme saying, can we have some more?Um, yeah, shamelessly and we'll keep banging on at that.
But I know we've got a, a partner in that, in that fight and we will hopefully be able to turn our shoulders to the wheel and continue to get the sport in the right place for this great British industry.
Um, and she does great credit to her constituents and this House by her hard work in this area. Um, moving on to the other contributions, the Right Honourable member for Stone, Great Willie and Pancreas. Um, again, yet another time when we've come to a debate and we are again, forcefully agreeing on the same points. Normal service will be resumed very soon. Um, but the points he made about identity and the need to increase exports are well met. And I'm sure.
Common to many of the people in the chamber today. The honourable member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross again was really, um, quite right to bring up the idea of the high skilled jobs that the ceramics industry provides. And actually the link to his visitor economy. Although if he does want me to go that far north, he might have to take me to a distillery as well. Um, to my hon. Friends for Stoke on Trent, Central. Newcastle under Lyme, Stoke on Trent North and Stoke on Trent South.
Um, you can never expect to come to one of these debates and not hear um the Stokies and Newcastle under Lyme coming at you with the importance of ceramics to their area and the, the centrality of it to both the North Staffordshire identity and to its economy. But it was also fantastic to hear them talking about advanced industry, advanced ceramics, about the growth potential of the industry and actually how the government can support that through better procurement and through, um, action on back stamping. Um, the honourable member for Mid Cheshire, again, focus on job skills and growth and the fact that the ceramics industry is not just, um, someplace we need to help is actually if we can get the support right, it can drive our economy going forwards into this century and beyond.
Um, the honourable member for Stroud speech was excellent. I thought, in showing that these are not the jobs of last resort. People want to work with their hands. People want to make things. People want to work with ceramics. And I think, again, being able for us to say that we're going to support this industry, we're going to drive this industry forward and provide those high skilled, high quality jobs that people really want to be involved with. Um, would be remiss for me to not remark on the honourable member for Broxtowe, my honourable friend for Broxtowe.
Again, really important to raise the £120 million package that the government announced. And also to talk about the identity of place that comes with and I'm I'm actually unaware of any other industry that has that identity of place being so linked into the industry, which supports it. Um, my hon. Friend for North West Leicestershire, um, wouldn't expect to do a ceramics debate without her talking about bricks. Um and not just bricks and the importance of bricks and the importance of those jobs that it brings to her area, but the importance of the industries that ceramics support, particularly in construction.
Uh, my hon. Friend for Saint Austell and Newquay, again, uh, mentioning over this side, you've moved. Um, raising, yes, £120 million support package. But it was also fantastic to hear somebody else talking about the impact that dumping has on the ceramics industry. Uh, we made thanks to the Lib Dem spokesperson for again, talking about bricks. Um, I think the point he made about the assessment of carbon costs is really valuable, especially when we talk about the quality that he was talking about.
120 years might be more appropriate for a brick. That might be true for an international brick. I think the bricks that are made in the UK, because they are of such high quality. 120 years is very, very, very conservative. As an estimate, the Right Honourable member for West Worcestershire, um, I. Took down a quote that she said it. This is not just another sector. And I think anybody who's been here today can really understand this is not just another sector.
It is recognised the world over for exactly that quality that I mentioned. And it was fantastic to see that, um, we do significantly disagree on the myth that North Sea gas will cuts on gas, but fortunately, I expect to have many more opportunities to rehearse that until we finally get that party to see sense. Um, finally to the minister, to the member for Stockton North, um, I think he will eventually become sick of the sight of us all banging down his door to talk about ceramics. Um, I don't care.
Um, but I would also be remiss of me not to remark on his willingness to work with MPs, to work with parliamentarians, to be listening, and actually to take that listening and turn it into action. And we're still not we're still clearly not there with the design of the scheme still clearly not there. And we're not going to go away and we're going to keep asking for more. And I think his quote about the honourable member for Newcastle under Lyme saying, can we have some more?Um, yeah, shamelessly and we'll keep banging on at that.
But I know we've got a, a partner in that, in that fight and we will hopefully be able to turn our shoulders to the wheel and continue to get the sport in the right place for this great British industry.
19:41