Budget Resolutions

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on a Budget delivered in an extraordinarily difficult global economic climate and with limited fiscal headroom. Yet I do believe that it will be remembered as both radical and important in prioritising cheaper energy and focusing on prevention, which is a massive step. Fiscal devolution and supporting high streets and entrepreneurs are significant measures that will ultimately bring significant benefits to the residents of Rossendale and Darwen, particularly now that Lancashire has an opportunity to join the mayoral pathway. On that point, I take this opportunity to urge the leadership of Lancashire county council to listen to businesses and community leaders and finally agree to a mayor and grasp the huge opportunities that this Government have offered.

More broadly, the Chancellor has balanced immediate support and the need for breathing space, with long-term reforms needed to build a global economy for the 21st century. At its heart, the Budget lays the foundations for a reindustrialisation strategy capable of bringing good jobs to places that need them most. This vision resonates powerfully in Rossendale and Darwen and across the UK. Making more things in more places means secure, well-paid jobs and a more resilient country.

That is why we established the Reindustrialisation Research Group, bringing together over 90 Labour MPs to support the Prime Minister’s vision and help translate it into action. It is good to see the Budget addressing the key questions that have been raised ever since the Prime Minister first championed the idea. First and foremost is clarity on objectives. That is important, because if we judge economic success only through national GDP, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past, pursuing the easiest growth while overlooking the towns and communities that were left on the sidelines for far too long. Instead, reindustrialisation must deliver good growth everywhere, spreading jobs, hope and opportunity across the country.

The Chancellor has been clear that reindustrialisation is also essential to national resilience. We must once again produce the steel, fuels, chemicals and other things that we need to be secure in a turbulent world. In understanding that, we see that reindustrialisation is far more than just a rebrand of the modern industrial strategy. Supporting high-growth economic clusters is vital, but it cannot be the whole answer. As the Red Book itself states:

“Reindustrialisation means more good jobs around the country. It means more towns and cities making and innovating and having a stronger role in the national economy.”

This is a UK-wide project to build the great British businesses of the future, whatever and wherever they may be, combining our proud manufacturing heritage with world-class innovation, creativity, research and development. That means tackling the constraints holding firms back, and the Budget is clear on what they are: high energy costs, limited access to finance, procurement and so on. Addressing those at a national level while drawing on the power of devolution, and supporting businesses through powerful local partnerships, provides a comprehensive approach to unleashing the potential of British manufacturers.

We need to take up the challenge with urgency. We must recognise that right now we are losing good businesses, ones that could compete and win if only they were on a level playing field. So, the first step towards reindustrialisation must be to halt deindustrialisation. Among other things, that means further action on industrial energy costs. We called for an extension of the British industry competitiveness scheme to all manufacturing companies in the Budget. I realise the constraints the Chancellor was under, but we must recognise that this is unfinished business. We need to continue to look at all options for immediate measures.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is giving a really powerful speech about the importance of reindustrialising our communities and halting deindustrialisation. Does he agree that we need to do everything we can to get the ceramics impact fund, which was designed by the Government to support the ceramics sector, out of the door and into businesses where it can make a difference as soon as possible?

[Andy MacNae]

Absolutely. Ceramics is one of those industries, along with steel, chemicals, fuels and so on, that is foundational to our economy. It is part of our national resilience and our national story. It is vital that we retain it in the interests of a safe, secure and stable country, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

We need the structure to effectively deliver reindustrialisation and we need to be clear that that requires a whole-Government approach. It needs dedicated capacity empowered to drive implementation, and policy co-designed with businesses and trade unions.

Finally, we need to turn ambition into measurable national objectives. The ReRG proposed a target of 1 million additional jobs in production by 2035. That would help to rebalance our economy and ensure that prosperity is felt in every part of Britain. The forthcoming 10-year plan is our opportunity to make that vision real. I urge the Government to build on the Budget and work with the ReRG, businesses and trade unions to back British manufacturing and ensure we deliver good jobs in every community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I am always a little worried when Members cheer because I am last!

I join colleagues in recognising and supporting important measures in the Budget that will give people across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages—the place I call home—valuable breathing space. There are 34,790 households across my constituency that will receive £100 directly into their bank account in January because of this Budget. That comes on top of the removal of VAT from energy bills, the return of the £2 bus fare, and the promise to get rid of standing charges on gas. Haulier businesses have also been supported by the delay to the fuel price escalator. We could go on and on and on. Any of those changes on their own will not be the end of the cost of living crisis, but I am already hearing from people back home who are so happy that this Government understand the importance of giving them that breathing space in their personal finances.

The changes to small business rates relief announced by the Chancellor in the Budget will mean that many businesses in our town and city centres and in our villages will be lifted out of paying any business rates at all, and many more will see a smaller bill. Fifteen premises in the centre of Sankey’s Corner in my constituency will be taken out of paying that bill at all—that is a huge number of shops that will now have more money to put back into their businesses and the community. I have been unable to get the total figure for how much will be saved there, but it looks like it will mean an investment into that community of anywhere between £50,000 and £100,000 per year forever. That is a real investment in a high street in Burntwood by this Government.

Similarly, of around a dozen shops on the high street in the village of Fradley, four will no longer be paying business rates at all and a further four will have their bills cut because of this Budget. On top of that, across Lichfield and East Staffordshire, some 764 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will see their rates frozen in cash terms because of decisions made by this Labour Government.

I am pleased that the Government are pressing ahead with plans for devolution across Staffordshire and Stoke. While the previous Government pushed power and funding into the West Midlands conurbation and the East Midlands combined authority, they gave a cold shoulder to the county to the north. This Government are prepared to step up and give our county the powers, and drive the economic growth, to bring good jobs across our area. Just yesterday, I spoke to the principal of South Staffordshire college about the importance of getting these powers to where they need to be, so that our skills training can meet the needs of our local area, especially the rural areas of my constituency and the wider county. The economy needs workers, and ensuring that those workers have the skills they need is something that is so important to areas like Staffordshire. I am excited to get the decisions on skills made in the right places.

There are a few other points that I wanted to pick up, but in the interests of time I will turn finally to the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. The pension schemes for former coalminers and mineworkers have been poorly set up for so long, so I am very pleased that this Government have moved even closer to delivering the justice that coalfield communities—like mine, in Burntwood, Handsacre and the surrounding areas—deserve. The end of the Treasury grabbing half of the scheme surpluses should be applauded; the end of the standstill clause so that bonus pensions can be guaranteed should be applauded; and the previous return of the investment reserve to the people who earned it should be applauded. All those steps for communities should be applauded, and they simply would not have happened without a Labour Government.

However, there needs to be action on the last remaining piece of the jigsaw: the final reserve—the guarantor’s fund. The commitment from the Chancellor to move quickly on this, and the commitment this week from the Work and Pensions Secretary this to happen in weeks not months, have been really welcome, but we cannot wait. Miners have already waited for far too long. Every day, miners leave the scheme. Every day, we lose people. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We must push for them, because it is their money—they earned it—and this Labour Government need to do what we should always do: stand up for our mining communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Poundland

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for rightly raising the concerns of his constituents who work at the Poundland stores and the distribution centre in Harlow. I absolutely share those concerns, which is why we are taking a responsible approach by engaging with Gordon Brothers, Poundland and the recognised union, USDAW, which is concerned about the impact on its members and their livelihoods. I will be meeting representatives of Poundland tomorrow, and USDAW will be part of those conversations. It is really important that we reiterate the importance of these jobs, and that we make sure the business can succeed in the future and protect as many jobs as possible.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Last week, workers in Lichfield woke up, put on their uniforms, went to work and were told that their jobs were under threat—not because the company is not viable or profitable, but because the company’s owner, Gordon Brothers, is choosing not to do the right thing. It is choosing to put jobs at threat for its own selfish interests. I know the Minister and USDAW are working really hard on this, but can she give the House a reassurance that everything will be done to make sure that Gordon Brothers steps up, does the right thing and backs its workers? It is the workers who have turned the business around, not the owner, and it is time that Gordon Brothers recognised that and backed those workers.

[Kate Dearden]

We absolutely back the workforce and thank them for their hard work and dedication to the business. That is why we have been engaging with the company and the union this week, and why we are encouraging the owners to act in the best interests of their loyal UK staff and stores. The Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have been keeping a close eye on what is an extremely worrying situation for the staff, their families and our wider community. I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and hope that he is assured about our commitment, engagement and work on this issue this week. We will keep him as updated as we can.

Performance of Royal Mail

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Before I start, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to the Communication Workers Union.

It is over a decade since the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats oversaw the privatisation of Royal Mail, and it is clear to residents in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages and—if this busy Chamber is anything to go by—to people across the country that the transition was grossly mishandled. Those parties failed to plan for Royal Mail’s long-term future in a market that was already showing signs of dramatic change. Now we see the results: late delivery after late delivery, leading to countless missed hospital appointments, GP appointments, court hearings, credit card bills—the list is almost endless.

The post remains an essential public service, and we need to secure its future. I am proud that Labour MPs up and down the country are leading on this, and I could thank countless Members for their hard work, I am especially grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), with whom I have been working closely to co-ordinate a campaign in Parliament.

I am sure that I speak for all Labour Members when I say that we understand the serious and complex challenges facing Royal Mail, but too often the response we get from the company when we raise concerns, and by extension its response to our constituents, is nothing short of dismissive. When we tell Royal Mail that yet another resident has missed cancer treatment or received a threatening message from a debt collector for an undelivered bill, we are too often told that there simply is no problem. Just today, I have had an email from Royal Mail assuring me that everything will be fine in time for Christmas, despite the fact that it has not met its delivery obligations at the Lichfield office at any point in the last five months. It beggars belief.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution to this important debate. Does he agree that this seems to be a deep cultural issue within Royal Mail? Not only is it in denial, as far as I can tell, that there is a problem with the service, but when Members of Parliament visit their local delivery offices, it cleans house from top to bottom to present as if there is no problem, only for us to then subsequently discover that there continue to be serious issues with the service to our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Robertson]

I have experienced that at first hand as well. I went to one of the arranged visits to my local distribution office, with various people from the Royal Mail comms department there. By the time I got back to my office, I had had three emails from posties at that delivery office saying that every single postal worker went out that day with two routes on their back, just to ensure that the mail was out of the way and I did not see it. It is a real problem that Royal Mail does not want to grasp this.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend’s leadership on this issue has been magnificent. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for calling this debate, which I am grateful to contribute to, albeit briefly. To hear my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) talk about, “It’ll be okay for Christmas,” and to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch talk about the low morale of workers within Royal Mail, does he agree that part of this debate this evening—we started on a good footing with my hon. Friend—is giving thanks to posties for their incredible hard work? That is not only because they work under incredibly hard circumstances, but because they are the heart of our communities, often noticing any differences. When they see a person who normally gets letters not answering the door, they often are the ones who raise the alarm in the local community.

[Dave Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the value that posties have in our communities not just in delivering post, but more widely. We saw it over covid where the only person a lot of vulnerable residents would see in a week would be their postie. She makes an important point about their importance to our communities.

Returning to Royal Mail’s inability to grasp the nettle and to the fact that it sends us emails saying, “Everything’s fine,” “Don’t worry,” and “Nothing to see here,” that is tantamount to telling every single MP it has sent that communication to that our constituents are lying. Royal Mail needs to change its approach radically and rapidly.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dave Robertson]

I will make some progress.

Royal Mail needs to own the true scale of the problem and the genuinely felt anger—that is essential. I look forward to discussing this with the Royal Mail CEO when he meets Labour MPs in Parliament next month. Labour Members do not want to stand up in this Chamber and attack Royal Mail, and we are certainly not attacking postal workers.

We recognise the scale of the challenge facing the industry. The number of letters sent in the UK has halved since the company was privatised, while the number of parcels has risen dramatically, fuelled in many cases by the growth in online shopping. Virtually all the parcel companies competing with Royal Mail, and oftentimes using its network, use a bogus self-employment model for their workers. That means Royal Mail is competing in a market where it has a fundamental disadvantage, and we should not want to encourage the model that these parcel companies are using—it is bad for workers, consumers and the taxpayer. Too many parcel companies pay a pittance for an unmanageable workload, exhausting drivers who cannot provide a quality service to customers as they race to complete rounds that are frankly impossible, and the public purse is ripped off in the process. While Royal Mail pays £650 million a year in national insurance contributions, many of these companies do not pay a penny.

The Government are now consulting on upgrading the rights of these parcel delivery drivers, and it is a start, but we need to go further. We need true parity between Royal Mail and its competitors, a level playing field where every company pays a fair price if it chooses to use the Royal Mail network. We need Royal Mail to take a long-term view of its workforce. New entrants get far worse terms, and that is fuelling a retention crisis with a staggering 400 posties leaving the company every week. It may help pinch a few pennies now, but if Royal Mail cannot keep its hard-working staff, the business is destined to fail.

I am sorry to say that we need to look again at the delivery model. Royal Mail is currently rolling out DM26, as it calls it, but our posties tell us the process is already chaotic, the workload is unmanageable and it is not a long-term solution. We need to heed the recommendation of the Business and Trade Committee to look at giving Ofcom stronger powers to regulate Royal Mail. It concerns me that the regulator has no solution beyond more fines for Royal Mail, which are clearly not working. We need to build on the Government’s “golden share” in Royal Mail and think about an ownership model for the future, with the voices of customers and workers right at its heart.

[Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)]

Last Friday, I spent the morning with the brilliant, dedicated postal workers at my local delivery office in Denton. Yet people across the constituency regularly tell me they are not receiving post, despite the staff clearly doing everything they can to keep the service going under immense pressure. Does the hon. Member agree that the privatisation of Royal Mail has clearly failed and that the Government must take urgent action to restore a reliable postal service that also treats workers fairly?

[Dave Robertson]

The hon. Member makes an important point. As we have heard from many Members today, it is not the posties; it is the system that they are being asked to work in. We need to do a number of things; there is no single answer that will solve this. We need a suite of different responses that lead to a proper outcome.

We need to think about bringing Royal Mail and the Post Office back together and look creatively at opportunities for profit, such as Post Office banking hubs. We need to look at the pay and bonuses of Royal Mail’s senior leadership. We are already doing that with the water companies; I do not see why it would be inappropriate in this case. When a private company delivers a public service, it must be held to the highest standards. Just like with those water companies, we cannot see bosses’ pay balloon while workers struggle and customers are let down.

I am not arrogant enough to stand here and say that I have all the answers. These ideas are all born out of consultation with organisations across the sector, and that is why it is so important that we get all the parties around the table to share those ideas so we can turn them into action. Two weeks ago, the Communication Workers Union wrote to the Secretary of State calling on him to hold an emergency summit to discuss Royal Mail’s future. I am glad to hear that the meeting will go ahead, and I ask the Minister that my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch and for Corby and East Northamptonshire and I are included in those discussions. Back-Bench MPs and our constituents must have a voice in them.

Royal Mail was founded over 500 years ago. It is a great British icon and an essential public service. We cannot and must not be the generation of politicians who allow it to fail.

Royal Mail: Performance

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sorcha Eastwood]

The hon. Member makes an excellent suggestion, and he is quite right that it should not be on Members of this House to conduct such an extensive and ongoing campaign, almost fielding the complaints, as it were. I thank him for his leadership on that.

Speaking of leadership, I now turn to the leadership of Royal Mail. I want to be fair to Royal Mail—it deserves a right of reply—but I cannot say what its leadership thinks, because its leaders will not meet me. I wonder why.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Following a meeting that I held with other Labour MPs and the head of Ofcom this week, the CEO of Royal Mail has invited a number of us to meet him off-site at 9.30 am on a random Wednesday in a couple of weeks’ time. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be much better for him to recognise that MPs from across the House and representing every single type of constituency have major concerns about Royal Mail, and that he needs to get himself into Parliament to listen to our questions directly, rather than suggesting that we traipse halfway across London to go into a room that he is in charge of on the basis of an agenda that is entirely his, rather than the one that our constituents want to discuss?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Hear, hear—I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. In all honesty, I was reluctant today to say that Royal Mail was continuing not to engage with me; I felt that it was gaslighting and I was scared to mention that. It did manage to meet some of my colleagues in Northern Ireland at a local level, which I thought was generous. However, this matter is a reserved matter, it does sit within this House, and I think that right hon. and hon. Members, including Front Benchers, have gone an awfully long way to accommodate Royal Mail when, as the hon. Member has just said, its representatives should be presenting themselves in this House, not the other way around.

I want to turn now to the posties. I declare an interest: my stepdad was a postman many years ago in Sheffield, and he has permanent back problems as a result. I think many people underestimate just how difficult a job that was, at any time. But now? I dread to think about the stress and pressure that those posties are under.

Mineworkers’ Pension Schemes: Nottinghamshire

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Yemm]

I agree with my hon. Friend completely.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I know that my hon. Friend just said there are too many people to mention by name and how sad it is that we have lost so many of the campaigners, but would he like to join me in celebrating the work of Tommy Christopher, who did so much to lead the campaign, and his nephew John—I have the pleasure of calling him a constituent—who is now chairing the campaign? Without them, we would not have got as far as we have. Will he join me in thanking them?

[Steve Yemm]

I join my hon. Friend in thanking those he mentioned.

In Mansfield and across the rest of my constituency, whole communities were built around the pits. My constituents’ fathers and grandfathers went underground—and plenty of them went underground themselves. They kept the lights on and the factories running for this country. It was hard, dangerous work, and many of them are still living with what it did to their health. The least we owe them is a decent pension. For a long time, they did not get that.

When British Coal was privatised in 1994, the Government of the day agreed to guarantee the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. In return, the Treasury took a share of the surpluses. Over the years that followed, billions of pounds went into the Treasury while a lot of former miners and their widows got by on fairly modest pensions. People in our communities never thought that was fair, and they were right. I am proud that this Labour Government have started to put it right.

British Industry Supercharger: Ceramics

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)]

It is a real pleasure to be here. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has made an outstanding case. I can reassure him that when we make decisions, they go beyond the sheer economics of investment, and into considerations about communities and sectors. The societal impact, should more ceramics companies fail in the cities that he and his colleagues represent, was very much in my mind. People of my age and generation remember very well that de-industrialisation was an active decision made by the Government in the 1980s in parts of the country, particularly the north-east, east midlands and elsewhere. It left a scarring impact that has crossed generations. I would not allow that to happen again on my watch.

My hon. Friend makes his case very eloquently. Going up to Emma Bridgewater the day after I announced the package was a very memorable occasion. It shows his graciousness that he would say that my handiwork on that day was anything other than basic. His contribution shows the importance of the ceramics industry to many communities around the country, particularly in Stoke-on-Trent and other manufacturing heartlands. Ceramics is a sector with a proud history and heritage, a highly skilled workforce and an important role in local economies and the wider economy and supply chains around the country.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Peter Kyle]

I will, in just a moment. My hon. Friend was not here to hear his colleagues’ contributions earlier. He will regret that, because they were Churchillian.

The Government recognise the importance of and understand the challenges that the sector has faced in recent years. The British industry supercharger was designed to support the industries most prone to carbon leakage due to high electricity costs faced by UK businesses. The supercharger supports the most electricity and trade-intensive industries by reducing their policy and network costs. Some electricity-intensive ceramics firms do receive the supercharger, and they make up around 10% of the industry.

[Dave Robertson]

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?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution. Of course, he is completely correct. The impact that these brands have around the world has not been made recently, and is not to be taken lightly; it has come on the back of generations of extraordinarily hard work, precision and success. That is why the industry has the global recognition that it does. We celebrate the success of the past, and the impact and importance the industry has for communities, but I recognise the contribution that it should and will make in the future as well.

The businesses I mentioned will have benefited from the recent uplift to the network charging compensation scheme, which now saves eligible ceramics businesses 90% on their electricity network charges. However, the reality is that much of the sector is gas-intensive, rather than electricity-intensive, and UK gas prices are more internationally competitive than electricity prices, notwithstanding the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central made.

The Department for Business and Trade intends to review eligibility for the supercharger this year, and I encourage—in fact, I implore—the ceramics sector to engage with that process. Any changes to eligibility will be subject to consultation and ministerial approval, and the Government must always bear in mind the cost of potential changes and who would pay for them. The Government are also taking wider action to support over 10,000 manufacturing businesses in the industrial strategy growth sectors, and in foundational industries that provide key inputs for those sectors, through the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Some advanced and technical ceramics will be eligible to receive that support from 2027, and it will reduce their electricity bills by up to £40 per megawatt hour. Members should not forget the announcement I made earlier this year: qualifying businesses may get a bonus covering the costs of this year, too.

The Government recognise that ceramics manufacturers are still under pressure, and I have been saddened to learn of the closure of, and job losses at, iconic ceramic manufacturers in recent years, most notably at Denby Pottery. Unfortunately, manufacturing ceased there, as administrators were unable to find a buyer for the business. Officials in my Department are working with the administrators as they take their statutory process forward, and I pass on my very sincere and heartfelt sympathies to all the workers, families and local communities that have been impacted by the closure. Our priority now is to support those who have been affected. We are working across Government and with local partners and relevant agencies to ensure that support is in place for workers who have been made redundant, and for those in the wider area impacted by Denby’s administration. That includes ensuring a joined-up, local response, and ensuring that employees can access the help and assistance that is and should be available to them.

It is clear that the ceramics industry faces significant challenges, but despite those, the industry has great potential to be forward-facing as we transition towards a decarbonised economy. To unlock the industry’s potential and help support ceramics firms, the Government have recently announced a £120 million ceramics industry support scheme. That is a substantial intervention, focused on the needs of the ceramics sector. The scheme will back capital investment, and energy efficiency and decarbonisation projects, as well as providing operational support for successful applicants to the fund who require additional help to manage any increased ongoing costs. Ceramics are crucial for our modern way of living, from house building to smartphone screens, from plates to planes, and from engines to mugs and space shuttles, as well as all the other products that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned.

This funding will support the industry right across the United Kingdom, including in my hon. Friend’s home city of Stoke-on-Trent. The scheme will help to modernise an industry with a proud heritage, and the Government are working closely with the industry on its design. Officials in the Department for Business and Trade are engaging broadly, including with the sector’s main trade association, Ceramics UK, and individual businesses, to ensure that the scheme truly helps the sector in the long term and secures its long-term competitiveness. We want a thriving ceramics industry that continues to provide skilled employment, supports local communities, drives innovation and remains globally competitive.

Ceramics Industry

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

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.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

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?

[Dave Robertson]

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.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

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.

[Dave Robertson]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Robertson]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

It is like an open goal, isn’t it, Mr Speaker? Sorry—you do not have a view.

I believe that we achieve far more by our common endeavour than by going it alone. That is why I am a passionate supporter of the Union. Of course there are specific things about the Scottish economy that we want to drive forward. For instance, 54% of Scottish exports go into the European Union. If we manage to secure the sanitary and phytosanitary deal that we are trying to negotiate with the EU at the moment, that will pay enormous dividends to Scotland that it would never secure were it entirely on its own. Separatism never works.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to help increase levels of private sector investment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is an advocate and champion of businesses in Lichfield. As I am sure he is aware, we are making sure that the UK is the best place in the world to invest by backing priority sectors through our industrial strategy. The advanced manufacturing sector plan will strengthen UK supply chains in sectors such as automotive, aerospace and clean energy industries, ensuring that businesses in Lichfield, such as its manufacturing and logistics businesses, get the skills, technology and new commercial opportunities that they need.

[Dave Robertson]

The quantum technology sector is hugely important for the UK. We have world-leading researchers and businesses innovating in healthcare, defence and many more industries, but quantum firms tell me that as they grow, they find it harder and harder to secure the investment that they need to commercialise their exceptional ideas. The risk that we face is that they will take their businesses out of the UK in order to seek that investment. That is why I recently established the all-party parliamentary group on quantum technologies to help Members of both Houses to understand this rapidly evolving sector. What can the Government do to ensure that our quantum businesses get the investment that they need to grow here in the UK?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work in establishing the all-party parliamentary group on quantum technologies. He is right to identify these technologies as very important for the future, and to put his finger on the particular problem that we have in the UK: while we are brilliant at innovating and investing in research, we have historically struggled with scale-up. That is not something that this Government are prepared to accept. Just as we are investing in critical minerals and automotive connected mobility technologies, we are investing in this area. The British Business Bank is doubling its annual investments to ensure that we can support scale-up and bring forward at least 10 new-to-market growth-stage funds so that we can leverage pension investments and help British businesses to stay and grow in the UK.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend’s constituents absolutely deserve better, and posties deserve dignity at work, given the essential job they do for our society and our economy. That is exactly why we are convening meetings between management and unions to make sure that those talks progress.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

My speaking notes talk about excuses from Royal Mail. Now that I am in the Chamber, though, I do not think that is the language I will use, because people across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are sick of being lied to by Royal Mail. I met Royal Mail just before Christmas to complain to it about the total lack of a postal service in Lichfield—we were probably the worst area in the country at that point. When I had that meeting, I was told that all the first-class mail went out last week, but that was a lie—it was an absolute lie, because my constituents told me so. Royal Mail clearly does not have a handle on this issue. It is either not measuring its performance or it is covering it up, so I ask the Minister to use the golden share we have to force Royal Mail to be honest, fess up and fix it.

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend shows passion and anger, which he has also shown to me in private when raising these issues. Again, that speaks to how frustrating it is for us as Members of Parliament to raise a problem—on any issue—and then to be told that it does not exist when our constituents are telling us otherwise. Royal Mail has a responsibility to address the problem in a direct and straightforward manner, because if we are not recognising the problem, we will not deal with it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I haven’t the faintest idea. I will write to the hon. Lady.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for Industry for his engagement with Ceramics UK this week, meeting the organisation and ceramics companies from across Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, the west midlands and further afield. He will have heard from them about the importance of getting ceramics firms into the super- charger scheme. I was pleased to hear what he said about trying to extend eligibility, so could he give us an idea of when we might hear some positive news on that front?

[Chris McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for so clearly representing the importance of the ceramics firms in his constituency. I heard the message loud and clear from the ceramics industry this week about the impact of energy costs and, as I mentioned earlier, in the review of the supercharger scheme, I have asked my officials to look carefully at the opportunities for including the ceramics sector.