Dave Robertson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Since 2011, 15 years ago, my constituent John has been forced to use a bucket in his garden in lieu of a toilet because his own toilet pumps raw sewage back into his house. I have raised this on the Floor of the House before, and after my intervention, Severn Trent finally provided a Portaloo and promised a permanent solution. Unfortunately, this week it informed John that the permanent solution will not work and there is no timeline for delivery of a solution to this absolutely shocking failure on its behalf. It is a matter of dignity for John and his neighbours in Hill Ridware. Will the Leader of the House arrange for me to meet the Minister to discuss this shocking case, because it simply cannot go on any longer?

• 9 Sept 2026 · Education and Skills Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I beg your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, to start with a couple of thank yous. First, I thank the Secretary of State and the Government for the massive investment in South Staffordshire college, right across the southern part of Staffordshire, to make sure we are turbocharging opportunities for young people. Secondly, I say a massive thank you to every teacher, teaching assistant and member of school support staff who delivers great results across my constituency and further afield. As important as the comments and discussions are about the PISA data that has come out today—and those international comparisons are important—I know that if I go out on the doorsteps in Lichfield, Burntwood or elsewhere in my constituency this weekend and talk to them about PISA statistics, I am going to get short shrift. What people really want is opportunities for young people, and I hear time and again from young people who want to work with their hands. They want to be chippies, they want to be brickies and they want to be sparkies. Can the Secretary of State confirm that these reforms will make it easier for those kids to get the future they deserve?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to sum up these debates and thank hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) and my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) brought to the table points on the balance of rights between the different parties involved, how disagreements between intended parents and surrogates can be worked through and the importance of surrogates’ rights, and a focus on the rights of the child. We also heard about the legal complexities around devolution from a number of Members, particularly in Holyrood and Stormont, but I am sure that is also the case for Cardiff. My hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) and for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor)—I always say it should be pronounced “Beduth”—highlighted the difficulties faced by intended parents and families navigating a very complex process, the importance of consent as we navigate it, the value of surrogacy to families and how families find a way to start using the process. It was also great to hear contributions from the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the party spokespersons—the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for the Conservatives —and the Minister. It was clear today that this is an incredibly complex and detailed debate, and one that needs to be considered fully. While I am sure the petitioners would have preferred to hear a further update from the Minister, she was very clear when she outlined the current legal position and advice from the Government on surrogacy and that the Government are staying exactly where they are and will get to this when time allows—that was a very paraphrased version of her conclusion. I thank everybody for their time today, and especially you, Mr Pritchard, for chairing. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 763161 relating to surrogacy law and legal parenthood.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of finance, which I will touch on briefly, so I ask him to bear with me as I get to that part of my speech. Opponents say that the parental order process is really complex. The document that intended parents have to submit is 200 pages long, meaning that many will seek legal advice. Adam and Jamie say that they expect legal fees for their parental order to be in excess of £10,000. We have just heard from my hon. Friend that it can be even more costly in other parts of the United Kingdom. That money is very real, and intended parents face very real financial difficulties. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the process can cause real practical problems. In fact, I have heard of cases in which surrogates have had to dial in to medical appointments for their child in the US for months after birth, because the hospital at home is unable to recognise the intended parents as responsible for their child’s health decisions. Experts say that, in their experience, the most distressing part of the process for most intended parents is the court-mandated social worker visit. Supporters of the current arrangement compare it to a visit from a health visitor, but opponents say that there is no comparison. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service is the agency that advises the courts on children’s welfare, and in the vast majority of cases it is involved where a child is believed to be at risk. However, CAFCASS is also involved in surrogacy cases. Its assessments for a parental order involve criminal checks, child protection reports, home visits with parents and a full, detailed report. Although it is incredibly rare to see CAFCASS reports on intended parents that are anything but wholly positive, parents find it extremely distressing to be questioned and scrutinised in a way that parents conceiving without the need for a surrogate simply do not experience. In 2018, as a result of those difficulties, a previous Government asked the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission to jointly consider reforms to UK surrogacy law. It was a significant piece of work, and the report was published in 2023. It recommended “a new pathway to legal parenthood” in surrogacy cases, with the screening of intended parents taking place before birth, so that they could be recognised as legal parents from birth. The proposed pre-birth arrangements included an agreement between the surrogate and the intended parents, with independent legal advice provided to all parties, a preconception assessment of the child’s welfare, and the agreement of a regulated surrogacy organisation to recognise the surrogacy agreement. If the surrogate then withdrew consent, the existing parental order process would apply. If the surrogate changed their mind before the birth, they would be the legal parent at birth. If they changed their mind in the six weeks following birth, they would be able to apply for a parental order. The authors of the report strongly felt that that struck a balance between protecting all parties—the surrogate, the parents and the children—and, crucially, keeping the child’s welfare as the central concern. Having said that, it is really important to bring in the voices of Professor Hopkins and Professor Black, who made it very clear ahead of this debate that they never intended that part of their proposal to be carved out and delivered in isolation. They proposed a wider package of reforms, and they say that it was only part of a comprehensive solution. Although some who advocate changes to surrogacy law argue that the issue of parental orders can be dealt with as a quick win, the professors believe that it should be addressed as part of a wider package. That package includes, for example, creating a mandatory surrogacy register so that children could find out more about their birth mother and, with their consent, her family, if they wish. It is also important to note that the Law Commission’s proposal for a new pathway to legal parenthood for intended parents would only apply to surrogacy arrangements here in the UK. It is proposed that the existing parental order system would continue to apply when babies are born abroad via surrogacy. The Law Commission report concluded that it would be impossible to ensure that laws abroad are in line with what we would consider UK norms. That concern is flagged by some of the groups opposed to surrogacy arrangements, as the second most popular destination for UK surrogacy is Nigeria—a country currently subject to special restrictions when it comes to adopting a child due to child welfare concerns. In preparing for this debate, I heard worrying reports of surrogate mothers, often living in real poverty abroad, being pressed to sign legal agreements under extreme time pressure and without independent legal advice. That is far from being the case everywhere. However, it can never be acceptable, and we should make sure there are proper legal safeguards in place. The Law Commission’s hope is that, by maintaining the UK’s altruistic approach to surrogacy—that is, keeping it not for profit—and updating the law, more intended parents will be able to pursue surrogacy here in the UK and make use of a new parental pathway to be recognised as legal parents from birth. The petition focuses on a specific part of surrogacy law, but it feeds into a much wider debate. There are some quite stark divisions on the issue, which is understandably very emotive for a large number of people. However, what seems clear is that the current law on surrogacy is no longer working and that a wider conversation about how we should change the legislation in this area would be welcome. I know the Government have said that they will look at this issue when time and capacity allow, but I am very interested to hear more from the Minister about what that might look like and when we might be able to expect it.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place in this Chamber. I will touch on health later, so I ask him to hold fire.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 763161 relating to surrogacy law and legal parenthood. It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard, and I am sure today will be no different. The petition calls for a change in the law so that the intended parents of babies born through surrogacy can be considered to be the legal parents from the moment of their child’s birth. Under current law, that is not possible. Intended parents must go through a months-long process in the courts and be visited by a social worker before they are considered to be the parents of the children in the eyes of the law. Ahead of this debate, I met the petition’s creator, Adam, his fiancé, Jamie, and their daughter, Leven, who was born via surrogacy in Connecticut. I am pleased to say that Adam and Jamie have joined us in the Public Gallery today. Although baby Leven has not joined them, she made a cameo appearance on our call ahead of the debate. Adam and Jamie are listed as Leven’s parents on her birth certificate in the United States, but more than six months after her birth, they still are not recognised as her legal parents at home in the UK. That is what prompted Adam to create this petition. When we met, he said, “We’re changing Leven’s nappies, we’re putting her to bed—we are her parents, we’re bringing her up” and yet he says that babies like her are in “legal limbo” under current legislation. My role today is to introduce the petition by setting out the petitioners’ views and framing the debate to follow. It is good to see so much interest from Members across the House. In preparation, as well as meeting Adam, I have drawn on the expertise of a range of organisations and individuals, with the expert support of the petitions team. They are often not thanked enough, so I place on record my thanks to the entire team for their support in preparing for the debate. We met groups such as Surrogacy Concern, Stop Surrogacy Now UK and Brilliant Beginnings, and Dr Herjeet Marway of the University of Birmingham, who is the founding chairperson of SurrogacyUK’s ethics committee. We also met Professor Nick Hopkins of University College London, a former law commissioner for England and Wales, and Professor Gillian Black of the Scottish Law Commission and the University of Edinburgh. Together, they authored the joint Law Commission report on surrogacy reform, which was published in 2023. I will start with the current state of the law and the reforms proposed by that Law Commission report. When a child is born to parents via surrogacy, whether in this country or abroad, as baby Leven was, the surrogate mother is considered the legal mother at birth under UK law. If she is married or in a civil partnership, her partner will automatically be the second parent on the birth certificate, irrespective of the child’s genetics. There are children out there today whose parents, as considered under UK law, have no genetic relationship to the child at all. That is because in UK law, the person who gives birth to a baby, and no one else, is considered the mother. That has led to a complicated reality in today’s world, where a growing share of babies are not born via natural conception. If you give birth using a donor egg, you are considered to be the child’s mother in the eyes of the law. But if you cannot carry a baby, and if you and your partner have an embryo that is biologically yours carried by a surrogate, you are not considered to be the legal parents when your child is born. Intended parents and their surrogates can draft a surrogacy agreement setting out how they want parental rights to be arranged for the child, but those documents have no legal standing in the UK. To become legal parents, intended parents must apply for a parental order through the courts. They have to make that application between six weeks and six months after the baby’s birth. Organisations that specialise in assisting intended parents say that the process normally takes between six and 12 months to complete. In that time, the baby will almost invariably be living with the intended parents, but legally, they are strangers to that child.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rewiring the State · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place and thank her for her earlier comments about the wildfires this summer. Staffordshire fire and rescue service saw more than 600 outdoor fires in July alone. That does not include any of those that happened in August. It is important that, in this place, we recognise the bravery of those firefighters who were out there day in, day out. Every human instinct, on looking at the wall of flame they were faced with, tells us to run the other way, but those men and women went out there day after day, ran towards danger and kept our communities safe. I thank them. Will the First Secretary of State ensure that the voice of firefighters is at the heart of preparing for the changing climate and that they get what they need to protect our communities? I make particular reference to retained firefighters. I am aware of retained firefighters in Staffs who did an eight or 10-hour shift fighting wildfires, went home, got in the shower and went to their day job. They are absolute heroes and deserve all our respect. If we can make sure that their voices are at the heart of the response, that would be a very good thing.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Prime Minister for his commitment to building good growth in every postcode. Throughout Lichfield, Burntwood and the Villages, my constituents will say that there is a real opportunity to look at High Speed 2. There have been almost endless delays and disruption from roadworks and road closures on the stretch that would have linked Birmingham to Crewe and Manchester. There has been nothing but pain, and nothing but an anchor on our growth—and for all that pain we will see no gain. No station is planned anywhere in Staffordshire, and no new services are planned anywhere in the county. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how we can make this project work for every postcode along the line?

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As I am sure the Minister knows, I have been a trade unionist since I started my teaching career some years ago. I have been involved in a number of industrial actions over that time, as a teacher and member of a trade union and as a trade union staffer. The driving force behind a significant majority of those industrial actions was not pay; it was often the safety of staff, the safety of sites, bullying managers or the inability to deliver an environment in which members felt they could deliver their best. Does the Minister agree that the ability to take industrial action is not always about money-grubbing or about pay? It is often about health and safety and about delivering the very best workplaces for our workers.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point about the centrality of public health to the founding of the NHS. Earlier in Committee, I said that the NHS was the greatest gift the Labour party had ever given the country, and I fundamentally believe that. He is absolutely right to mention the centrality of public health in that process. I also thank him for his recommendation of a book to read over recess—that is always a pleasure. To return to new clause 79, I want to focus on what we are asking when we say that all Cabinet members have to attend this new committee. That would include the Secretary of State for Defence, and although I understand cross-Government working and the need for Departments to work more closely together, I am scratching my head over what actions we expect the Secretary of State for Defence to take to support public health, and especially over the fact that they will be required to attend this committee a minimum of three times a year with, in my reading of the wording, another Defence Minister.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I very much appreciate that intervention, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting published in a very important journal. I am not in any way saying that the Secretary of State should not have any regard— [ Interruption. ] Now that he has made a joke, I want to say that I think he looks like a trombonist, rather than a trumpeter. There is a very important point to draw out here. Although Departments can think about the public health impacts of the work that they undertake—I am sure many Ministers will do so—I am not sure there needs to be such a requirement to focus on public health for the Ministry of Defence, which obviously has a very significant, serious role. New clause 80 would require all Ministers to have regard to public health. I really appreciate and value that—I think this is a good debate for us to have—but if the Minister for investment has managed to secure an investor to save a large business that is essential to the economy of an area, do I want them to be held up by having to demonstrate that the investment will ensure public health? I am not sure I do. A lot of decisions have to be made very quickly. I am not going to go through a long list of Ministers; we would all be here until next week. I just think the wording of the new clause is too broad, and I am not sure I can support it in its current form because it would place too much of a requirement on too many Departments to focus too much on areas that are not their core responsibilities.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  To quote the Precision Health Technologies Accelerator at the University of Birmingham, very close to my Lichfield constituency, its leadership has been supportive of the removal of tariffs from pharmaceuticals, saying that the introduction of the tariffs could lead to “supply chains collapsing and patients suffering.” That is an enormous growth opportunity for the West Midlands combined authority, for Birmingham and for the wider region. There have been a lot of discussions, but I wanted to make sure that the views of organisations that will benefit are on the record, because this will be so beneficial for my region.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely join the hon. Member in thanking those service personnel who do so much good around the world, but I wonder whether it is appropriate to ask the Secretary of State for Defence to focus on public health. It is absolutely right that the Defence Department could do things, but does the Secretary of State need to be so centrally involved in this committee that they will have to attend three times a year, in addition to another Minister, who will have to attend a minimum of four times a year? Yes, a variety of Departments would be able to do that.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I will speak briefly on new clauses 79 and 80. I really like the intent of these new clauses, and the idea of Government working better and more together, public health being more of an agenda, and trying to get people working together in that framework. I am pretty sure that every Member in the House would support that. I do, however, have some serious concerns about the wording. New clause 79 proposes a new committee, whose membership would include at least one Minister from each Department and all Cabinet Ministers—I presume that that is in addition, so it would be all Cabinet members plus one other Minister from each Department, which makes it seem like quite an unwieldy committee. There comes a point when a committee, if it has 70 people in it, ceases to be a committee, particularly when it will also need to be chaired, have clerks and have various people in the room. I have concerns about its size. I also have concerns about the frequency with which it would meet, and the requirement that every single Cabinet Minister must attend a minimum of three times a year, which is the implication of the wording.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Farm Business Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  Farmers across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages know that one of the most important things for them to make their businesses work is access to fertiliser at a price that allows them to be profitable. What can the Government do to ensure that fertiliser prices do not spike, as we have seen in the last couple of years, and remain stable in the long term?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Farm Business Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps she is taking to support the long-term financial sustainability of farm businesses.

• 9 Jul 2026 · British Industry Supercharger: Ceramics · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way?

• 9 Jul 2026 · British Industry Supercharger: Ceramics · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for not quite being able to get here for the kick-off. The Secretary of State talks about the importance of the ceramics industry, both in economic and heritage terms. Does he agree that ceramics firms offer us a huge amount of soft power around the world? The “Made in Stoke-on-Trent” and the “Made in England” marks are so important, and in my constituency, we have Armitage Shanks, a name known all around the world for the products that it provides. Does he agree with that point?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress. There are concerns that if we roll some responsibilities into ICBs or councils, the Department needs to make sure that the issue does not get pushed to the side and that the funding does genuinely remain for patient voice. I am reassured that there will be a patient experience directorate within the Department. That will bring decision making and the patient voice into the Department while also keeping an eye on what is happening with those ICBs and ensuring that they have standards to hit. The Department needs to ensure that it is sharing good practice and keeping oversight of local authority commissioning of social care. The CQC is starting to do that, and there are some positive indicators. There is obviously more work to do, and we need to stay on top of it because, as I said earlier, there are risks whenever there are changes to healthcare. I am reassured that bringing the patient voice into the room with decision makers is the right way to enact change.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is, as ever, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. Healthwatch was established, at least in part, as a response to the Mid Staffs scandal. Mid Staffs came up three times in our evidence sessions, and the hon. Member for Winchester mentioned it just now. That scandal matters to everyone, but it has a particular resonance for my role in Parliament. Many of my constituents were harmed by the failing at Mid Staffs. I was born in that hospital, and I speak as a Staffordshire MP. None of us should ever forget what happened or allow it to be swept aside without examining it. There were a great many failings at Mid Staffs over a long period. Oversight was just not in the room when decisions were being made. Staffordshire county council’s health and care overview and scrutiny committee clearly did not do that job. The Francis report stated: “The arrangements for public and patient involvement, and for local government scrutiny in Stafford, were a conspicuous failure.” The report recommended some changes to ensure that Healthwatch, which was in the process of being set up at the time, was funded properly. In that light, the framing of this debate is important and timely. Healthwatch has been going for well over a decade. It is right that we now examine its impact, as it is a significant part of patient voice within the NHS. Despite the very best efforts of a great many hard-working staff and an army of committed volunteers across the country, the quality of local healthwatch organisations is pretty changeable. Over the past few weeks, I have spoken with right hon. and hon. Members from across the House. The feedback that I have received has ranged from, “My local healthwatch team is brilliant— I work with them really closely and they have really helped out with a huge amount; they deliver great things in my constituency” all the way to, “I have some pretty significant concerns about their impact.” In a couple of cases I heard, “What is Healthwatch? I have never heard of it.”

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am just about to conclude, so I will allow the hon. Lady to come back when she makes her speech shortly. The final point I want to make is about local government. I hope the Secretary of State will issue guidance on how local government will commission adult social care services. I also hope we will get annual reporting from ICBs and local councils on how they are using the patient voice. I know that the Secretary of State will have the ability to intervene, and I would expect him to do so should those reports show that the patient voice is not being used, is not finding its way into the room or is not leading to the meaningful change that the Amos report suggests.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In isolation, that criticism would be legitimate, but, alongside other changes being introduced, there are ways to mitigate that problem. I am concerned that local healthwatch branches are not truly local. The healthwatch in Staffordshire has not held an event in my constituency for a number of years. I think its last three events were just volunteer fairs to get more volunteers involved. That is not to say that there are not significant numbers of people there who work very hard to support people in their engagement with the health service, but geographic changeability is real. On a national scale, Healthwatch England has a huge role to play.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Funding Healthwatch is really important, but to address the issue properly, we must make sure that Healthwatch is in the rooms it needs to be in. Funding needs to be part of the process that ICBs follow. I will touch on that later, so the hon. Member will hear further thoughts on the matter. Local healthwatch organisations across all our constituencies have an important role. At the local level, they are geographically bound to counties. In constituencies like mine and that of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, those geographical areas are huge. The health disparities within my constituency, with two towns that are 4 miles apart, one with a significant mining—

• 6 Jul 2026 · Ceramics Industry · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Ceramics Industry · Hansard source

  More

  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.