[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 764785 relating to support for the ceramics industry. It is a pleasure, as ever, to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. Before I get going, I declare that I am a member of the general, municipal and boilermakers union, the GMB. It is a particular pleasure to introduce this debate as a ceramics MP, and I add my full-throated support to the petition and its aims. My constituency of Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages is home to Armitage Shanks, a company that for more than 200 years has been manufacturing bathroomware in the village of Armitage, from which it takes its name. The identity of the village is inextricably tied up with the company, but, sadly, my constituents will fully recognise the petition’s characterisation of a struggling ceramics sector, because like so many of our British ceramics businesses, Armitage Shanks has been suffering, despite the best efforts and hard work of its brilliant staff. Earlier this year, the firm—now owned by Villeroy & Boch, 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, with 100 jobs lost as a result, and it is a reminder that when our heritage ceramics brands are struggling, it is about not just our country’s manufacturing history and the heritage of the areas that support those businesses, but present-day jobs, skills and livelihoods. I have visited the Armitage site multiple times in recent months, and the concerns that I have heard over and over again from workers there and from their union, the GMB, fully echo the petition. 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, 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, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). In March, the iconic British brand, known around the world for quality manufacture and design, entered administration. Its collapse has also led to more than 100 skilled workers losing their jobs. Thanks to one of those workers, Hayley, we are here to debate this motion. I am very glad to see her in the Public Gallery today. I congratulate her on her first week in a new position that she found elsewhere, but I am sure she would have liked to go to it in rather better circumstances. I am sure that I speak for all right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber when I say that British ceramics is richer for retaining her experience and passion in the industry. Hayley’s petition could not be more timely. We met ahead of the debate to discuss her concerns, which echo the worries that I hear from the constituents, businesses and unions in my area, and which I and other ceramics MPs gathered here today have been pressing the Government on. I am not surprised to see so many hon. Members joining us, because almost 110,000 people signed Hayley’s petition—more than 10% of them coming from just seven constituencies. This issue is very much centred on Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, and the people in our areas care deeply about it. Hayley’s petition recognises that much of the ceramics sector in our country is in crisis. As she warns, “soaring industrial energy costs” have left businesses “at the risk of imminent collapse without urgent intervention”. Ceramics manufacturing relies on high levels of electricity and gas, and when their prices rise here in the UK, our businesses are put at a competitive disadvantage on the international stage.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in this debate, which is clearly important not only to his particular area, but to UK manufacturing more widely. On the challenges of energy costs, the ceramics industry has suffered similar challenges to the critical minerals sector, specifically the tin mining and processing sector in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency. Does he agree that the Government must go further and faster to replicate some of the support that has been afforded to the ceramics industry for critical minerals?

My good and hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of energy costs to industry across the United Kingdom. Ceramics, though, is the hardest industry to decarbonise. It is therefore right that the Government are looking at a specific carve-out for ceramics, especially given its geography. Returning to the problem so ably diagnosed by Hayley, she has also offered a solution. The petition calls on the Government to urgently review the British industry supercharger—a scheme that helps energy-intensive businesses including steel, chemicals and paper manufacturers with their electricity costs. She calls for that to be extended to the ceramics sector. During the last few months, Denby has said that relief through the supercharger scheme would have saved the company, but currently, ceramics businesses are falling through the cracks of the scheme.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) pointed out, the critical minerals industry lacks wider support through the British industrial competitiveness scheme and the supercharger scheme, but so does upstream china clay production. That is a huge concern for a supply chain industry that supports many businesses represented by Members in the Chamber.

It seems like Cornwall has come mob-handed today; I am getting it from both sides. My hon. Friend is right, and that goes back to the point about reindustrialising the nation. We have heard for so long about deindustrialised areas and former industrial areas, so it is fantastic to see the Government continuing to drive the reindustrialisation of those areas to bring highly skilled, high-quality unionised jobs back to our communities, where they deserve to be. Returning to ceramics, since this petition was started, the Government have recognised the challenge facing the ceramics sector specifically and have pledged a £120 million package of targeted support. That funding is hugely welcome, but we all know that funding alone is not enough. A lot now hangs on the design of that scheme to ensure that the money is delivered quickly and is well targeted at the companies that most need it and where it will protect the most jobs. Crucially, the scheme should be simple for firms to apply for. Some ceramics firms employ large numbers of people, but they do not have significant back offices that can go through a very complex and heavy administrative process to access such a scheme. Although it is important that companies are asked for the right information to support the scheme, we must not create an unnecessary administrative barrier. I and other hon. Friends in the Chamber will continue to work on this alongside the GMB, other unions and the Government. We must ensure that that funding helps bolster and secure this industry for the long term rather than kicking the can down the road. That brings me to why supporting this sector is so important—all of us in the Chamber know this, but I never miss the opportunity to remind a Minister. Ceramics manufacturing goes to the heart of identity in our counties. So many ceramics firms take their names from the towns, villages and areas in which they are based, and they have made those places famous around the world. I spoke to one hon. Member who had used an Armitage Shanks toilet in Samoa. That is a powerful form of soft power, if Members will excuse a rather crude pun. Ceramics manufacturing jobs powered our economies. Stoke-on-Trent is literally known as the Potteries, and if I had not mentioned that, I am not sure I would have been allowed to leave the room. Just as the closure of mines struck at the identity of the towns that supported them, including places such as Stoke-on-Trent, deindustrialisation has hurt our communities. Ceramics speaks to a proud tradition of world-class manufacturing in our counties, but it is not just about the past; it is about the present and the future. It is about providing jobs for people where, at the end of the day, they have the satisfaction of looking at a pallet of whatever they have produced and knowing that they have made something. It is a proud tradition that we should not allow to pass into the past. To support that soft power, those iconic British brands need to know that they have a supporter in our Government. I would like to see our public procurement work much harder to make sure it is championing the best of British ceramics—actually, the 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. It is entirely possible for our public procurement to be used to support ceramics. It would be fantastic if every embassy were stocked with ceramics made in Britain. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Again, other ceramics MPs are behind me. Every public building should also look at whether it can support British-made ceramics in its sanitaryware—and the list goes on much further than that. I will also draw attention to the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), which I support. The Bill relates to backstamping and the “Made in Britain” mark, so we can make sure that when something says “Made in Britain”, it is from Britain and it is of the high quality that people expect. Currently, firms can import ceramics that have been made cheaply elsewhere, glaze them here, refire them and stamp them as British. Being able to support the supply chain through not only public procurement but the backstamping Bill is very important. Wider than that, we 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 in the UK are higher than in many of our competitor countries. That takes a toll on the industry and means that the supercharger scheme is so important. Entry to the scheme is based on what is known as a SIC—standard industrial classification—code and the categories that the 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, worse still, because of the way the scheme is funded, ceramics businesses are being levied to subsidise other high-energy businesses—because if businesses do not receive the supercharger, they pay for others to get it. Ahead of the debate, I met with the industry association Ceramics UK, the GMB union, the Trades Union Congress and Energy UK. One concern was that SIC codes are not necessarily being properly applied. The number of ceramics businesses that the Government count is far higher than the number that the sector recognises. Hopefully that is good news for Ministers, because if we can get the codes altered correctly, we will see that there are fewer ceramics businesses in need of support, which will help to reduce the headache in the Treasury. First, we can look at tightening up the SIC codes, then we can extend the supercharger to those codes. We can then ensure that the supercharger scheme is properly funded by the Treasury and not by other businesses, so that general taxation can support these jobs. Beyond the supercharger, which is undoubtedly vital for ceramics, the Government have committed and recognise that the industry needs tailored support. I ask Ministers to look closely at the specific pressures that the sector is facing. As well as high electricity inputs, ceramics uses a huge amount of gas. Although the cost of gas in Britain is internationally competitive, prices are highly volatile because of a lack of storage in the United Kingdom. If we could look at supporting gas storage or some other mechanism to smooth peaks and troughs in gas pricing, it would help ceramics businesses with their long-term planning and help to them look at their decarbonisation processes, too. On decarbonisation, hydrogen gas is a promising alternative, but hydrogen kiln technology requires further investment and if we cannot pipe gas in, there will be serious supply problems. Some ceramics manufacturers run their kilns 24/7/365, and the idea of hydrogen being brought in by lorries just does not stack up. We can use the revenues from carbon levies to support the transition and protect manufacturing jobs both today and for the future. I have gone slightly over the amount of time I was aiming for, and many other hon. Members are eager to make the case for the industry, so I will draw to a close. I reiterate my thanks to Ceramics UK, the GMB, the TUC and Energy UK for meeting me, to Hayley for spurring today’s important debate, and to every single one of the workers who go out day after day to produce fantastic, high-quality ceramics—some of the best in the world—right here in the UK.

Order. There is a lot of interest in this debate, so I am imposing an indicative time limit on speeches of four minutes, an exemplar of which will be Sir Gavin Williamson.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), on securing this debate. As one of probably a few Members of Parliament who have worked in the ceramics industry, this is not just about jobs for me; it is about who we are, identity and what it means to make something tangible and real that can make a difference to our economy. It contributes £2 billion to our economy, including £600 million worth of exports from a country that, sadly, exports too little. The situation we are in is a tragedy. Ceramics is not just cups and saucers, plates and bowls; it is the tiles on our homes and the bricks. I have some amazing ceramics businesses in my constituency, whether that is Dunoon, Lucideon, AMRICC and, of course, Ibstock, which makes the iconic Staffordshire blue brick. It is crazy that we are in a situation where bricks are being imported into this country from India, Turkey and the Netherlands, and British manufacturers employing British people and providing British exports are being priced out of the market. The core issue here is energy costs—energy costs first, second and third. It would be disingenuous of me not to thank the Government for the action that they have taken to support the ceramics sector, but we will continue to see a decline in ceramics unless we address that core issue of energy. The Government have taken important steps to address it. The supercharger is important, but the reality is that only 10% of ceramics businesses are able to apply for that, for the simple reason that gas is not included, or not in the way that they are able to access it. Some 86% of the energy costs for ceramics manufacturers come from not electricity but gas. That is not through choice; it is necessary in order to make the product. They are not sat there thinking, “I don’t want to do the transition to electricity;” they cannot make that transition and, as the hon. Member for Lichfield rightly pointed out, hydrogen will not be able to come to the rescue and save those jobs. I am conscious that many people want to contribute, so I come to my ask of the Minister. I know that he is incredibly knowledgeable and passionate about this sector. I urge him to look at setting out a timetable for a review of extending the supercharger so that it can cover gas costs. If he is unable to do that and we are unable to get the support required, more British businesses will sadly go under; more British manufacturing businesses will no longer be manufacturing or exporting, and firms from across the sea will step into that gap. That is not something that anyone wants to see, whether in Staffordshire or across the United Kingdom.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on presenting this debate, and my constituent Hayley who brought the petition. I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that I am a member of GMB. While the petition speaks to the wider issues facing the ceramics sector, it was set up following the devastating news that Denby Pottery, the largest employer in my constituency, was entering administration. The nearly 110,000 signatures—3,900 of which are from Amber Valley; I thank my constituents for signing it—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 its competitors offshored production to mass-produce goods more cheaply. That commitment has inspired extraordinary loyalty, with many in the local area having worked there for decades and even generations. However, despite its world-class reputation, Denby Pottery struggled financially. It had previously been through administration, and more recent global shocks in energy markets faced further pressure on manufacturing costs. That is why I worked with Hayley to produce the petition, which calls for the ceramics sector to be included in the British industry supercharger scheme. In the months that followed, I met repeatedly with Ministers and officials and raised 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 thank those who worked tirelessly to produce this, including Ceramics UK, GMB Union, colleagues here today and the Treasury, as well as the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. Heartbreakingly, in spite of that support, we now know that investors were unable to view Denby Pottery as a viable business proposition, so I am 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 that, I am clear that Denby Pottery’s heritage must be preserved. The onsite museum told the story of more than two centuries of innovation and industry. 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. Today, its legacy must live on in the lessons learned from its closure and the changes that it catalysed, 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. That includes insulating the sector from unfair competition, such as the dumping of heavily subsidised products from overseas markets. The public want to back overseas business and manufacturing, as illustrated by the incredibly moving scale of the support for the #SaveDenby campaign. I pay tribute to the campaign led by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for clearer country of origin labelling, and I hope the Government support his private Member’s Bill. To any potential purchaser of the Denby Pottery brand alone, I say this: if your produce is not made in Denby, using clay extracted from the ground in Denby village and hand-crafted by the people of Denby, then regardless of the name stamped upon it, it will never be recognised as true Denby pottery.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), my good friend and colleague on the Petitions Committee, on his excellent introduction to this debate. He talks about the wares of Armitage Shanks; I would venture to suggest that Armitage Shanks products are seen in some of the great houses the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. One may wonder what a Member from the north of Scotland doing on his feet on this debate. There are two ceramic companies in my constituency: ANTA in Fearn, owned by Lachie and Annie Stewart, whose products can be seen in Dumfries House—a place not unfamiliar to His Majesty the King—and Highland Stoneware in Lochinver, which is owned by Mr David Grant, whose wares can be seen in Balmoral. We are very proud of that. My point is that these companies actually teach vital local skills that would not otherwise be taught, create jobs in some of the remotest areas of the United Kingdom and provide a tourist product, which is absolutely crucial when it comes to visitors. When people, including right hon. and hon. Members, come to my part of the world in the north of Scotland, they should come and see ANTA’s fine ceramics in the village of Fearn. They should come and see Highland Stoneware in Lochinver. They will not be disappointed. We would not dare to compete with Stoke-on-Trent in terms of quality, but we are very proud of what we do. I am going to keep my contribution very short, but I want to make one point. It is not really pertinent to the Minister, but those fledgling and now grown-up companies would not have come into being had it not 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 halt and reverse the depopulation that was the curse of some of the remotest parts of Scotland. It was a great success story, and I give credit where it is due. However, that success story is not what it once was. This is a political point, but under the stewardship of the present Scottish Government the Highlands and Islands Development Board, now Highlands and Islands Enterprise, is a shadow of what its parent once upon a time was, which is a great pity. Although that is not the responsibility of the Minister or indeed the UK Government, I give due notice that this is a matter I shall continue to raise in future. Thank you very much, Dr Murrison, for your forbearance.

That was commendably brief, although not everyone will get in at this rate. I shall have to impose a three-and-a-half minute indicative time limit.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for participating in this debate. He demonstrates something that we have tried to make clear throughout our lobbying: this is not a Stoke-on-Trent issue. Yes, we are the spiritual home of the pottery industry, but there are ceramics manufacturers in most parts of this country making something beautiful out of dirt, essentially, and turning clay into art. The fact that he was able to share that story is very helpful in articulating the points we are trying to make. I congratulate Hayley for starting the petition. I declare my membership of the GMB and my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group for ceramics. I want to put on the record my thanks to Rob Flello from Ceramics UK as well as Sharon Yates and Chris Hoofe from the GMB for their sterling work in leading the campaign that has got us to this point. As was said by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), the industry employs 20,000 people. It is worth £2 billion to the economy, with £600 million-worth of exports. That makes it bigger than the fishing industry, yet the country’s emotive connection to it is not quite as great, so we still have work to do. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) picked up on my Ceramics (Country of Origin Marking) Bill. I genuinely believe there is a market around the world for quality ware made in the UK. We know it from Portmeirion’s advancements. They tell me about markets they are looking at, potentially bringing work back to the UK. Some companies in Stoke-on-Trent 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”. I hope the Minister can continue the constructive conversation that we have had so far to see how we get that Bill over the line in this Session. We are a city that looks at our history and we take it very seriously. I am proud to have the tile manufacturer H&E Smith in my constituency. It makes tiles for London Underground and is celebrating its 100th year. I have Emma Bridgewater, which makes incredibly well-known stoneware, and I have Portmeirion. I have Halcyon Days that makes giftware for the House of Lords shop. The city also gave this place Duchess China and, of course, Minton tiles are made about a mile from where I live. That is the history that we have contributed, but the sector has so much more to offer. We cannot make steel in this country without refractory grade ceramics. We cannot build houses in this country without the bricks. I say to the Minister, like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), if we are to have Homes England subsidise the building of homes in this country, can we please mandate that it buys British bricks with that subsidy? It would be a huge benefit for taxpayers’ money to go into a British industry to protect British jobs using a British product. There are also advanced ceramics that we use for defence, for nuclear and for medical technologies, which are leading 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. 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 it right, we can show that it works for that proof of concept. Finally, I want to briefly talk about the carbon border adjustment mechanism. CBAM is an issue. We have to get that right. It potentially puts the ceramic sector at risk. We are in danger of carbon leakage, yet that is not recognised as part of the scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) mentioned, the dumping of Chinese ware is a problem. Will the Minister look at how the Trade Remedies Authority considers the calculations for injury? Will he also make sure that ceramics are included in the supercharger scheme, which we discussed on Thursday during the Adjournment debate, to protect those jobs for the future?

Order. I am calling the Front-Bench spokespeople at 6.58 pm—so do the maths, folks.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for opening this debate. It is fitting that that was done by a good, loud and honourable Staffordshire voice—it could be no other way. Like him, I declare an interest as a proud member of the GMB. This debate is personal for those of us who call Staffordshire—the best county in England—our home, so I thank Hayley for allowing us to debate this issue. Newcastle-under-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, which contains £120 million of real and meaningful support for businesses such as Silverdale Bathrooms and Ibstock Brick in Chesterton. We fought hard for that support, hunting as a Staffordshire pack—with a little bit of Derbyshire and Leicestershire thrown in, alongside the mighty union movement and Ceramics UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said. I thank the Minister, who has been a real champion and a solid ally in this effort. For generations, people in my community in Newcastle-under-Lyme have produced the very best British products, with skill, smarts, experience and talent. Their work has powered and fuelled our local and national economies. There will be a theme in all the speeches in this debate: we welcome the £120 million, but we want to know that that package of support will be made speedily and widely available. There will be asks of the Government to step up properly and ensure that this age-old and successful industry is protected and to ensure that we train and equip our young people in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across our country with the skills necessary to enter and thrive in this most important industry. There will be the important demand that our communities should no longer be ignored, forgotten or left behind. As I say, team Staffordshire hunts with all parties as a pack, and that can be seen in this debate. For too long, our communities, home to the ceramics industry, were let down and left behind by the powerful few. We are here to change that, and change that we will. I am the third generation of my family to call Staffordshire home, and I have seen up close the powerful impact the ceramics industry has had on our part of the world. I can see its potential to do so in the future but we need to act. Out of all the sectors that once powered and thrived in our industrial heartlands, ceramics has been left behind, despite having built our homes, schools and hospitals. We need urgent action on energy bills and the costs associated for businesses in the ceramics industry. We need to ensure that the 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 is why I brought my “back British bricks” Bill to Parliament, and I will continue to push that agenda. The most important point that we must all remember is simple: the ceramics industry can flourish, thrive and continue to lead the world, but that requires the state to act. We are not asking to be bailed out or to get the same level of commitment that other industries have received in recent months. The growth potential of this industry is massive in communities like mine and in our national economy, too. I ask the Minister to remember that now and in the months and years ahead, because we will not be going away and we will not stop making the case for the ceramics industry, which has brought such pride and opportunity to communities in the industrial heartlands like mine in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Ceramics are who we are in north Staffordshire; they are in our DNA. They are in the bottle kilns on our skyline and the names above our factory gates, and they are 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 that built our city belonged in the past and that globalisation meant that towns like ours simply had to accept decline while investment flowed elsewhere. In May, this Labour Government tore up that narrative when they announced the £120 million supporting growth package. That happened because our Labour Government listened to me, my north Staffordshire colleagues and the GMB union. I pay particular tribute to Sharon Yates, a GMB member who is in the Gallery. She was absolutely integral to winning that support. In my constituency, we know better than most about what is at stake because we have lived it. In less than two years, three fantastic companies in my constituency have faced 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 had collectively 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 were at risk. Those meetings were tough and emotional, but they reaffirmed to me the importance of why we had to keep fighting for our pots: if those companies are allowed to go, with them will also go the skills and talents of our workforce. More recently, Burleigh, the country’s oldest Victorian pot bank, was at risk following its owners, Denby, falling into administration. Out there, people know that our industry needs protection and that it has a future. Step forward Will Moorcroft, the founder’s grandson; Cornishware, which has stepped in and taken over the Royal Stafford site; and Christopher Bailey, who transformed Burberry into a global fashion brand and has amassed a team of investors to keep Burleigh’s kiln firing. The prize is now long-term sustainability and an industry that stands permanently on a level playing field. I have two specific questions to pose to the Minister. I recently met with a number of smaller ceramics companies in my constituency. They are incredibly pleased with the support package. However, can the Minister confirm that all companies, both large and small, will benefit from the £120 million package? Will he also 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, and their Departments and embassies around the world, buy British. Will the Minister consider extending plans for procurement so that Stokie plates, cups and saucers are the only ones we see when we flip them over? I am grateful to the Minister because he understands the sector. We will keep fighting for more, as we always have. Ceramics is who we are, and our story is far from finished.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank all the people who signed this petition and commend the hard work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and all who fought hard for Denby and our ceramics industry. In Stoke-on-Trent South, factories such as Wedgwood and 1882 Ltd have crafted bespoke projects for centuries. Duchess China produces the cups and saucers used here in Parliament, Susan Rose supplied tableware for No. 10 and Caverswall China crafts pieces for Buckingham Palace. It is no wonder that so many of my constituents take great pride in working in the Pots—I see that we have pottery workers here today, including my constituent, Sharon Yates, who created the potter’s pledge led by the GMB. I encourage all to sign it to combat the issue of fakes and dumping. Since being elected, I, along with all my colleagues, have repeatedly raised with Ministers the importance of the ceramic sectors in north Staffordshire. That was to safeguard not only our tableware sector and proud potters’ heritage, but the strategic value of advanced ceramics, which I am pleased to see are now included in the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Regrettably, companies have faced real challenges: Brexit disrupted trade; there has been an influx of imported knock-offs; and energy prices have shot up following the war in Ukraine and the closure of the strait of Hormuz. The petition asks that ceramics be included in the supercharger scheme, and that is an understandable ask, but it does not solely answer all 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” for gas-intensive industries. As well as funding the capital investment for new technology, whether electric, biofuels or hydrogen kilns, such a fund would provide grants or loans to companies to explore process emissions reduction, artificial intelligence-enabled process optimisation along with processes to recover waste heat and improve energy efficiency. I was delighted that the Government announced a £120 million fund to support the sector in May. Following that announcement, I asked the Chancellor to clarify that the purpose of the fund was to support decarbonisation and innovation. She confirmed that it was indeed to help the sector tackle energy costs, improve energy efficiency and create a sustainable future. Alongside Lucideon and Visk, I want to thank the Henry Royce Institute and David Knowles, along with 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. Can the Minister ensure that the consultation about the design of the fund includes experts such as those mentioned above as well as a variety of small and medium-sized enterprises and organisations including Make UK and Glass Futures, along with the excellent Ceramics UK, which has worked so hard?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. As we have heard, the ceramics industry is a vital part of 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. However, like other energy intensive industries, including those 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 often far higher than those faced by international competitors. Those pressures have placed additional strain on businesses already working hard to invest, innovate and plan for the future. That is why tackling high energy costs and supporting the decarbonisation of energy-intensive industries must go hand in hand; those 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 those industries to decline, with the resulting impact on the communities around them, or whether we provide them with the tools they need to remain competitive. Hydrogen is one tool that 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 skilled jobs and manufacturing capability on which communities depend. We already see that potential here in the UK through the development of the hydrogen cluster in Cheshire. Although it is centred on the industrial clusters of the north-west and north Wales, the 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 we can realise that potential across the wider north-west, Staffordshire and the country as a whole is now the key question because we stand at a crossroads as we await the publication of the updated hydrogen strategy. I hope that we make the right choice to bring forward a strategy that backs those of our industries for which hydrogen is the only option—crucially, wherever they are in the country and not simply by picking winners and losers. The north-west has seen too many manufacturing sites close in recent years. We cannot afford to lose more industrial jobs, skills and investment. I hope that Ministers will publish the updated hydrogen strategy at the earliest opportunity and bring forward a hydrogen network that delivers for the communities that we represent. If we get this right, we will support not only industrial decarbonisation but skilled jobs. We will unlock private investment and help ensure that British manufacturing continues to thrive for generations to come.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for his excellent opening speech. My remarks today will be at a slightly different level. They are focused on studio pottery—ceramics made on an individual basis, where each piece is unique and handmade. Studio pottery is growing in popularity in this country following programmes such as “The Great Pottery Throw Down”. There are thousands of makers up and down the country, and the industry is worth about £50 million in its own right. Pottery and potters are as old as the human race; although it might not be the oldest profession, it is certainly one of the earliest. Britain leads the world in modern studio pottery, which was largely started by Bernard Leach and the Japanese master Hamada in St 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 that movement. However, making a living from pottery remains tough. The price of clay and energy have increased, and most potters earn well below the minimum wage. The Arts Council could help individual potters, specifically at the beginning of their careers. That would help nurture the industry, while a reduction in VAT on clay would help small producers. Furthermore, the way HMRC treats apprenticeships and mentoring needs a more creative attitude to help the industry. In Stroud, there are long-running potteries such as Lansdown Pottery and the newer Stroud Pottery. The Clay Loft in Nailsworth provides studio space and tuition for this very popular art form, while Stroud markets provide an excellent place to sell the pots.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about the importance of continuing the skills and heritage of the pottery industry. Will he join me in congratulating Fran, Kate and Daizy? They were employees of Denby Pottery and recently set up the Potter’s Nook in Ripley, where people in my constituency and beyond can go to learn the skills needed in the pottery sector.

Developing young potters is essential for the ceramics industry in general, and particularly for studio pottery. As a GP, I know that the therapeutic effects of clay are well documented. I introduced arts in my surgery in 2001, using ceramics and clay, led by Karen Hilliard, to relieve stress in patients. I also pay tribute to Jeremy Steward and Petra Reynolds, who work at Wobage pottery and have remained an inspiration. I cannot finish without mentioning my daughter Martha, who makes a living selling her unique pottery in Stroud market. Although she will never be rich, she continues to inspire me and many around her with her functional and exquisite ceramics. This country should be proud of its world-famous studio pottery industry, which brings employment and joy to so many people. We must do all we can to support that industry and its people.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on securing this debate and on his opening remarks. His strength of feeling and that shown by the petitioners, including nearly 800 in my constituency, demonstrate how important the ceramics and manufacturing sector remains to communities like mine and across the country. I would like to declare that I am a proud member of the GMB. The Government have rightly identified advanced manufacturing as a strategic priority for their modern industry strategy. Manufacturing accounts for nearly 15% of the east midlands economy, a greater share than in any other region in England. The £120 million support package for the UK ceramics industry is a welcome example of this Government backing manufacturing in the midlands. Over 450,000 people are employed in manufacturing across the east midlands, including a significant portion in the ceramics industry. These are not just jobs; they represent generations of expertise, craftsmanship and industrial knowledge that have been passed down through families and communities of working people across generations. Broxtowe still bears the scars of the industrial decline. Parts of Eastwood, a former coalfield community, have never recovered from the loss of traditional industries and the secure jobs that they provided. Broxtowe remains a home to major manufacturers, including Reckitt in Beeston and Caunton Engineering in Moregreen. Yet in meetings with both those companies, they highlighted challenges shared by manufacturers across the country: persistently higher energy costs and the challenge of decarbonising industrial processes while remaining competitive. Those pressures are being felt now. Without action, we risk seeing further investment in 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 has rightly highlighted those issues, but the lessons apply across the manufacturing industry. I urge the Minister to consider expanding eligibility for energy cost relief for manufacturers that fall outside 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 the 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.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for opening the debate, which has been a useful opportunity for us to talk about ceramics. I am also a member of the GMB. I thank Hayley for the petition, which was inspired by Denby Pottery, and the 504 constituents who signed it. For more than two centuries, Denby has represented the very best of British craftsmanship, with high-quality products, skilled jobs and a reputation recognised across the world. It is such an iconic brand for the east midlands. It is up to us as representatives to keep championing our local manufacturers now and for the future. I know of the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) has done with Denby. North West Leicestershire has a proud industrial heritage. Manufacturing remains the largest sector of employment locally and we are home to major ceramics employers such as Ibstock Brick. Brick is a key part of the sector. I have three Ibstock Brick sites and have been greatly pleased to meet with people from them on several occasions. The bricks are quarried and fired directly in North West Leicestershire. We create bricks and material used across the country that last for hundreds of years. In recent years, Ibstock Brick told me, imported bricks have made up about 20% of the UK brick market, and yet we already have the capacity to supply enough bricks for British homes for the future. When we talk about concern about ceramics, we need to ensure that we also put that in the context of industries that ceramics directly supports, one of them being construction. North West Leicestershire has about 4,000 people working in the construction sector, as well as being the national headquarters of a number of prominent house builders. We need to use the industry strengths that we have right on our doorsteps—British bricks building homes, so the family can thrive alongside our industry. Will the Minister in his response set out how we can ensure that UK brick manufacturers are not only supported in the challenge they face as an industry, but given the tools to help our house building and industrial targets? The support they need is 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 such as Denby and sanitaryware as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member 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 are 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, a local craft potter based in Moira. Such potters are important to the sector. The Government’s industrial strategy rightly recognises the importance of manufacturing, but the ceramics industry needs targeted support, so I ask the Minister two things: will he ensure that the £120 million gets to those businesses as quickly as possible, setting out a timetable in his response; and how will Government work with industry, trade unions and local communities to ensure that British ceramics has a strong future?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I declare my interest as a member of GMB union, and of Unite, which represents so many of the china clay workers in my constituency. That is one reason I welcome so warmly this Government’s £120 million package for the ceramics industry. I particularly welcome the £60 million of backing for capital investment in energy efficiency and decarbonisation, and the further £60 million to help manage rising costs. That is decisive support for a sector that 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 for not just ceramics, but construction, advanced manufacturing, technology, aerospace and defence. 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 the foundation of the ceramics sector, directly and indirectly employing thousands of local people in Cornwall. It is our strongest current mining industry, serving as a big granitic bridge between our industrial heritage and the mineral products of the future. I will take a moment to thank the Minister for his excellent leadership in this sector, and for his lucid understanding of those supply chains and the fact that minerals represent quite clearly the biggest Cornwall-specific growth engine in the years ahead. I thank him for his work, with his Department, to help unlock the potential of that key industrial cluster for us. May I ask him, however, whether he will confirm that upstream producers, including those that extract china clay, will be eligible for the support? Can he provide me and my constituents with some clarity on when those decisions about who receives the support will be clear? Will he outline what steps he is taking for an industry with high energy costs upstream—again, ineligible for BICS, the British industrial competitiveness scheme—and facing not only the huge challenges of foreign dumping practices but, in many cases, significant environmental and legacy pension liabilities due to the labour-intensive nature of its workforce? What steps is he taking to ensure that we put that industry on a more sustainable footing?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the petitioner on securing 109,000 signatures, as well as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on introducing it. I thought that when I had written a speech about bricks, I would be the only Member to talk about them, but then I noticed that the hon. Members for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) were present and realised that I would definitely not be. Bricks are the nation’s favourite building material. They are durable, beautiful and woven into every constituency across the United Kingdom. In any of our constituencies, we can walk past beautiful brick-built homes and terraces built to last—many of them more than a century old, still standing, loved and lived in. That concerns the first point I want to make to the Minister. A recent report published by Create Streets set out a serious issue about how we measure carbon in new homes. The standard assessment assumes that the building will last only 60 years. As we know, bricks do not last 60 years. Assess a brick over a realistic lifespan—120 years or more—and they perform significantly better on whole-life carbon. By baking in a 60-year assumption, the standard systematically makes bricks look higher carbon than they are and favours 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 of that standard is penalising one of the most durable, repairable materials that we have. This cost is being placed on factories. According to reports, domestic production has fallen from about 2 billion bricks not many years ago, to 1.3 billion in 2024. That is a 32% reduction in just a few years. The sector supports thousands of skilled jobs and is worth more than £1 billion. We have seen some brick factories closing already, and if more follow, we must make sure that we do not simply import bricks, adding risk to the supply chain and transport emissions while hollowing out our British industry. That, unfortunately, is being made harder, not easier, for British manufacturers. The UK is already the single largest importer of Indian bricks, and the trade agreement that the Government have signed with India will take away the remaining protected tariffs on those bricks imported to zero.

The hon. Gentleman rightly points out the Indian trade deal. He is right about the environmental and economic impact, but there is also the social impact. Too many factories making those bricks over in India and Pakistan are using what we would consider modern slavery and indentured labour. Additionally, efficacy surely ought to be at the forefront of any decision that the Minister makes about how we build houses in this country.

The hon. Gentleman is correct about the social impact, with modern slavery used in bricks coming from outside the United Kingdom. The Business and Trade Committee recently heard about how, although the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was a good start and had the full support of the House, the declaration requirements within it are not strong enough. A company can import things potentially made by modern slaves and satisfy the requirements, so we need to see a new piece of legislation to ensure that companies cannot import items that they know or feel have been made using slavery. We must also ask what the British public actually want to see in buildings. In visual preference research, bricks were preferred by 60% of the population when asked to compare two proposed buildings: one made out of bricks and one not. That is very clear across age, gender, religion and political affiliation. We are trying to build more homes, but pushing developers away from building with the material that the majority of the British public want to live in. Brickmakers are caught in the same energy trap as all the ceramics sector. Firing clay takes enormous heat, and that heat comes from gas, but because the Government’s flagship energy relief policy is designed around electricity, gas-intensive makers are largely excluded. The same industry is squeezed from multiple directions: a penalising carbon standard is undervaluing its products, we are shutting out suppliers in the United Kingdom and favouring suppliers overseas, and then there is the energy-intensive issue. I have four questions for the Minister. First, will he work with colleagues across Government to review the 60-year reference period for whole life carbon assessments and adopt a longer, more realistic lifespan so that we do not by accident create a de facto ban on bricks? Secondly, will the Government commit that sustainability standards will not rule out quality, durable, repairable materials that people love? Thirdly, will the Minister support cleaner brick production here at home rather than importing bricks from overseas, which sends the jobs and the emissions abroad? Fourthly, will the gas-intensive brick and ceramics industry finally be given the proper support that it needs via the Government’s supercharger scheme, so that its firms can compete on a level playing field? Bricks are not relics; they are well used, beautiful, durable, repairable and genuinely part of what makes Britain great. We should be building more homes and neighbourhoods that last for our children and our grandchildren, and stop penalising the material that does exactly that.

It is an honour to follow such an interesting speech about bricks. I congratulate Hayley and the other petitioners, the Petitions Committee and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for bringing this important issue into Parliament; it has been a really interesting debate. It is fair to say that the efforts of the petitioners have made sure that the concerns of workers, manufacturers, suppliers and the local communities that depend on the ceramics industry have truly been heard in Parliament. It is clear that the ceramics sector faces several existential pressures including, in particular, high energy costs, as well as burdensome regulation and rising labour costs. We have heard a range of valuable contributions from Members, and the importance of the industry, not just in Staffordshire but in many other parts of the UK, has truly come across. I was fascinated to hear about Scotland, Cornwall and Stroud, and about a number of businesses in the ceramics sector. It was very welcome to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), who made a powerful contribution on behalf of a sector in which he has first-hand experience of working. We have learned that the ceramics industry is not simply another manufacturing sector. It is a source of highly skilled employment, a proud part of our industrial heritage and a significant contributor to our economy. For generations, the British ceramics industry has been recognised all around the world for its quality, craftsmanship and innovation, but it is clear that the industry faces particular challenges because it is particularly energy intensive. The high temperatures that kilns need mean that the industry cannot simply find, at short notice, alternative sources of energy, or switch on and off when prices fluctuate. The industry is uniquely exposed to very high energy costs, and the recent challenges facing some of its well-known firms should serve as a warning. The supercharger scheme is a sticking plaster on the damage that has been caused by the Energy Secretary’s net zero policies, which have driven up the cost of energy and piled that cost on to businesses. The net zero costs that the Government have imposed on businesses have meant that the Government were required to introduce a £120 million subsidy for the ceramics industry.

rose—

rose—

I will not give way, given how tight we are for time. I hope Members will welcome the fact that the Conservatives have a clear and credible plan to cut energy bills, reduce regulation and lower taxes. We have a cheap power plan that will cut household energy bills by £200 a year and cut electricity bills for businesses by 20%. That could save ceramics businesses a large amount of money. It would save the average restaurant £5,500 and the average pub £1,100. We would achieve that 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 that is currently used to fund the payments through general taxation. We would 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.

Will the hon. Lady give way briefly on gas?

I am very tight for time, but if the hon. Gentleman insists.

We have heard a lot from the hon. Lady’s party about its cheap power plan. Is it her intention that gas drilled from the North sea would be specifically ringfenced and sold at a below-market price to sectors such as ceramics in Stoke-on-Trent and throughout the country, so that they can benefit, or would that gas still be sold to them via the international market?

It would mean we would have to import less from countries outside the UK because we would have our own supply. I do not want to intrude on arguments within the governing party, but I will call out the fact that it does not make sense to leave our own gas in the ground. The policies I have been outlining are precisely the ones that energy-intensive sectors such as ceramics have been calling for. If we are serious about protecting the British ceramics industry, we need to act now to cut the cost of industrial energy. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions. We have heard a bit about the challenge in respect of imports, so it would be interesting to hear from him what representations the industry has made to the Trade Remedies Authority. Will the Government 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? The future of a great British industry, and all the livelihoods that it supports, are too important to ignore.

I want to ask the Minister about the auction price that the Energy Secretary set today for offshore wind, which I understand is £120 per megawatt-hour. That sounds very high to me.

Does the Minister share my disbelief that the Tories continue to trot out the line that the Government are auctioning off wind power at a high price, while simultaneously neglecting to mention the levelised cost of electricity for thermal power, which is at least as high but takes a lot longer to deploy? Let us bust that myth once and for all.

Will the Minister give way on that point?

Will the Minister give way on that point?

Given that the Minister asked that he be informed of problems, the investigation process for calculating injury is incredibly arduous. In the last investigation, only two companies were able to take part in the process because of the bureaucratic and cost demands placed upon them. Simplifying the process for investigation would allow more companies to participate and provide evidence, which would make the TRA’s release more in line with what the sector and economy need.

Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

It is a pleasure to sum up this debate, although my thanks will be a bit out of order, because I want to start with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). It has been an incredibly difficult year for her and her constituents. Throughout all the difficulty that she has faced, I have been proud to call her a friend. She is a great credit to both her constituents and this House for her hard work in this area. I want to move on to the other contributions. Yet again, the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) and I have come to a debate in which we are forcefully agreeing on the same points—normal service will resume very soon. The points he made about identity and the need to increase exports are well met, and I am sure that they are common to many people in the Chamber today. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) rightly brought up the high-skilled jobs that the ceramics industry provides and its link to his visitor economy. But if he wants me to go that far north, he might have to take me to a distillery as well. We can never expect to come to one of these debates and not hear the Stokies—my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner)—or my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) coming at us with the importance of ceramics to their areas, as well as its centrality to the north Staffordshire identity and economy. It was also fantastic to hear them talking about the advanced ceramics industry and its growth potential, and how the Government can support that through better procurement and action on backstamping. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) focused on jobs, skills and growth. He also highlighted the fact that the ceramics industry is not just an area that we need to help; if we can provide the right support, it can drive our economy in this century and beyond. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) excellently showed that these are not jobs of last resort. People want to work with their hands and they want to make things—people want to work with ceramics. It would be remiss of me not to say that we must support this industry by driving it forward and providing those high-skilled, high-quality jobs that people really want. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) importantly raised the £120 million package that the Government have announced, and she talked about the identity of place that comes with this industry. I am actually unaware of any other industry that is so linked to the identity of the place that it supports. I would not expect to attend a ceramics debate without hearing my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talk about bricks. Not only did she mention the importance of bricks and the jobs they bring to her area, but she highlighted the importance of the industries that ceramics support, particularly construction. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) also mentioned the £120 million support package, and it was fantastic to hear somebody else talking about the impact that dumping has on the ceramics industry. I give many thanks to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), for also talking about bricks. He made a really valuable point about the assessment of carbon costs, especially when we talk about the quality. He said that 120 years might be more appropriate for a brick; although that estimate might be true for an international brick, it is very conservative for bricks made in the UK, because they are of such high quality. I also wrote down a quote from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) as she said it: “This is not just another sector”. Everyone here today can really understand that this is not just another sector; it is recognised the world over for exactly the quality I mentioned. The hon. Lady and I significantly disagree on the myth about cuts to North sea gas, but fortunately I expect to have many more opportunities to rehearse that debate until we finally get the Conservative party to see sense. Finally, I think the Minister will eventually become sick of the sight of us all banging down his door to talk about ceramics—I do not care. It would be remiss of me not to remark on his willingness to work with MPs. He listens to parliamentarians and turns that into action. Clearly, we are still not there with the design of the scheme, but we are not going to go away and we will keep asking for more. The Minister quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme shamelessly asking, “Can we have some more?” However, we will keep banging on about this, and I know we have a partner in that fight. Hopefully, we will be able to turn our shoulders to the wheel and continue to get support in the right place for this great British industry. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 764785 relating to support for the ceramics industry.

Sitting adjourned.