Department for Business and Trade

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) on securing this debate. I want to touch on three areas of Department for Business and Trade activity where the estimates and the funding it receives could be put to best use. One relates to the industrial energy problems that we face in this country, which I know the Select Committee has looked at. As the Minister is acutely aware, this has a direct impact on communities such as Stoke-on-Trent because of the foundation manufacturing industries that we still have that are energy intensive.

I very much welcomed serving on the delegated legislation Committee that passed the statutory instrument to extend the reduction in electricity costs by up to 90% for the supercharger. I know that some of the estimates, if approved today, will go towards funding that. As always, I want to press the Minister on whether, as well as increasing the amount that the discount can be applied to, he would consider extending the scope of that discount to sectors that are currently outside it—namely, of course, the UK ceramic sector. It is not currently covered by the supercharger scheme, but a small amount of help would go a long way in securing the jobs in the communities that most need it.

I also want to talk about the fact that Stoke-on-Trent is a foundational area of ceramics that is gas-intensive. The Government have previously discussed the fact that gas is an international commodity, the price of which is traded on the world market. With the events that are taking place in the middle east, we are all expecting to see an increase in world gas prices. That could result in a hugely damaging economic hit to sectors that are not eligible for any other form of relief. If any part of what is being approved today in the Department could be used as a cushion for those sectors that are unable to bring down those costs in any other way, it would bring relief to parts of my community.

Some of the money that is being granted to the Department should be used to promote better buying British and building British procurement. The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North has championed this, both in his role in this place and when he was running to be the West Midlands Mayor. He pulled together a wonderful strategy that I think we could learn from. Small and medium-sized businesses in Stoke-on-Trent tell me that they would love to do more business with the Government, public sector and commissioning bodies that have public money, but such contracts are often big and unwieldy and a challenge to access, as the businesses can meet only part of the contract rather than all of it. Anything we can do to break down those barriers to opportunities in procurement, and to focus on companies that make, build and employ people in this country, would bring an economic benefit to support communities up and down this country. Without costing the taxpayer any more, it would just be a better use of the money that we are spending.

Finally, I want to touch on how we do trade protection. I am not a protectionist. I do not believe that we should be putting arbitrary tariffs on things to prevent imports, but I do worry about the ever-creeping non-market economy. Countries such as China and increasingly, sadly, Türkiye, are using manufacturing in their own bases to import into this country to undermine domestic production with the intention that once our own country’s ability to produce has gone down, they will raise their prices. That could involve tyres or ceramics, which would affect Stoke-on-Trent, or it could be other products that we become dependent on in this country. If we are not putting in the correct trade remedies to secure domestic production, or at least to make domestic production as competitive as imports, we run the risk of becoming dependent on countries on which we cannot rely for the things that we want to make and build in this country. That would be very damaging for our own national sovereign capabilities.

UK-India Free Trade Agreement

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK-India Free Trade Agreement.

I will start by saying why this deal is so important. That may seem obvious, I suppose. We did £47.2 billion-worth of trade with India last year. That was up 15% year on year, and India is now our 10th-largest trading partner, but it is the future potential that stands out. India has the highest growth rate in the G20. It is likely to become the third-largest economy in the world by 2029. By 2050, India will be home to more than a quarter of a billion high-income consumers. Demand for imports is due to grow as well, reaching £2.8 trillion by 2050. Assuming global foreign direct investment into India continues on its recent trajectory, it could grow to £1 trillion by 2033.

Despite all that, India’s markets have been behind some of the highest barriers in the world. It has some of the highest tariff rates in the G20, with gin and whisky at 150%, cars at 110% and cosmetics at 22%. Soft drinks, lamb, fish, chocolate and biscuits—I know that is an odd combination—are at 33%. In 2024, India was ranked as the eighth most restrictive services market by the OECD. That inevitably either prices many UK products out of the market or makes them a premium product beyond the reach of many in India.

Some 42% of UK businesses surveyed by Grant Thornton in 2024 said that they would want to build a presence in India, and 72% said that a free trade agreement would encourage them to explore the Indian market. The agreement that this Government secured was a momentous achievement. Others had been trying to get a deal like it for years and failed, but this Prime Minister, along with the then Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), and my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander)—I pay tribute to them—brought home the goods.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Oh dear. I will give way, but I think I know what my hon. Friend is going to say.

[Gareth Snell]

The UK is the single largest importer of Indian ceramics. The trade deal removes some of the tariffs that we apply to Indian imports. The removal of those tariffs, along with industrial energy pricing in India, means that those imports become incredibly competitive in comparison to our domestic market. In some cases, those imports are well below our own market production point. Bricks are also affected. We are the single largest importer of Indian bricks, yet our own brick kilns stand at two-thirds capacity. Can the Minister set out the protections in this trade deal to ensure that while we get the new markets for our exports, we do not undercut our domestic market with cheaper imports?

[Chris Bryant]

I thought my hon. Friend might be about to talk about ceramics. He regularly speaks up—privately to me and publicly in the House and elsewhere—on behalf of his constituents, and he is right to do so. As he knows, I visited some of the businesses in his constituency, and I am keen to ensure that we do everything in our power within the Department to support, protect and enhance the British ceramics industry, which is an important part of our work. I just say to my hon. Friend that the overall impact of this agreement on the ceramics industry will be limited, because 543 out of 577 lines—steel lines, for instance—were already at 0%. The remaining 34, which we brought to 0% as part of the deal, all currently have tariffs of just 2% or 3%, and India is not a prominent source of imports for those sectors.

I accept that there are broad issues for the ceramics industry, and I have seen everything that Mr Flello, a former denizen of this place, has produced. I do not think that this agreement is the problem. There are other issues that we need to address, not least the issues that my hon. Friend raises in relation to energy costs, which are very specific to the ceramics industry.

Draft Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.

Energy-intensive industries have long been the backbone of our industrial economy. From steel and chemicals to ceramics and refining, these sectors provide skilled jobs, anchor local communities and guarantee our economic security, yet they are operating in an increasingly hostile environment driven largely by the cost of energy.

The draft regulations will make limited but important amendments to the energy-intensive industry electricity support payments regime. Specifically, as the Minister says, they will increase the compensation available under the network charging compensation scheme from 60% to 90% from April 2026 and will extend the application window from one month to two. The changes are made using powers under the Energy Act 2023 and are intended to strengthen the British industry supercharger package. The stated aim is to lower electricity costs for the most energy-intensive sectors, reduce the risk of carbon leakage, and help retain manufacturing investment and jobs in the United Kingdom.

The Opposition will always welcome measures that provide greater clarity and modest additional support for industries under pressure. However, it is impossible to consider this instrument in isolation from the wider context. Britain’s industrial electricity prices are among the highest in the world. On a per-kilowatt-hour basis, our electricity costs are the most expensive in the G7 and the European Union—around 46% higher than the median. Industrial electricity prices here are around four times higher than in the United States, and roughly 50% more than in France and Germany.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) has rightly said in other debates, Government policy risks accelerating the deindustrialisation of this country, from Stoke in the Potteries to the Prax Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I never miss an opportunity to talk about ceramics. When the hon. Gentleman listed the sectors that the scheme helps, he mentioned ceramics. Given that the supercharger scheme was set up by his Government, he will surely know that it does not cover the ceramics sector: the product standard industrial classification codes that were specifically listed when the scheme was set up excluded ceramics. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why his Government decided that ceramics were not entitled to the level of support that they put in place for other energy-intensive industries?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point; I have always been impressed, on a cross-party basis, by the passion with which he speaks for industry in his constituency. My point is that we need to talk to those industries that do not currently have the support. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman bobbed to try and catch your eye, Ms Vaz, so perhaps he will have some helpful comments for the Minister on that front when he is called.

I am making a point about the wider context in which we have to see the statutory instrument. The most glaring omission is the oil and gas industry in the North sea. Energy-intensive industries are not just struggling; they are being driven overseas by costs that they simply cannot absorb. The very thing that the Minister said he was trying to prevent is happening. Since Labour came into government, more than 15,000 manufacturing and industrial jobs have already been lost, largely because of astronomical energy costs combined with unnecessary green levies and carbon taxes. When manufacturing moves abroad, we do not eliminate emissions; we simply offshore them, often to countries like China with weaker environmental standards and far greater geopolitical risk.

We have also heard clear warnings from industry leaders. Sir Jim Ratcliffe has been explicit that high taxes and energy costs have left sites such as Grangemouth unable to compete with overseas rivals. These are not abstract concerns, but real decisions affecting real jobs. Against that backdrop, while the draft regulations make proportionate and technical changes, they do not address the fundamental problem. Increasing compensation within a flawed system is not the same as fixing the system itself. The best way to reduce electricity prices for energy-intensive businesses is to tackle costs at source by scrapping the energy profits levy and removing punitive carbon taxes that undermine competitiveness.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how this statutory instrument fits into a broader long-term strategy for energy-intensive industries. Does he accept that compensation schemes, while welcome, cannot substitute for the structural reform of energy pricing? Can he assure the Committee that the Government are developing a plan that genuinely restores Britain’s industrial competitiveness? Ultimately, energy-intensive industries know that their future depends on predictable affordable energy. If we are serious about growth, resilience and security, the Government must ensure that the policies of this country enable those industries to survive and thrive at home, not drive them abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the Minister for his engagement on the issue, particularly with the sector in Stoke-on-Trent and around the country. I talk about ceramics quite a lot, because the increasing cost of energy is a real impediment to us. I welcome the scheme, and I welcome the changes that will give greater relief to energy-intensive industries, but we face a perverse situation in which it is funded not by taxpayers’ money, in the traditional sense of the Government handing out a grant, but by a levy on licensed electrical suppliers that is used to compensate other sectors of energy-intensive industry.

This is about consumers in one sector paying higher bills to subsidise the cost for others. From a redistributive perspective I can see why that would work, but the wording of the regulations means that the product SIC codes under which a sector or industry can access the supercharger scheme are incredibly narrow: they are restricted to steel, cement and other things that are foundational to successful manufacturing in this country.

The perverse thing is that those who are not in the supercharger scheme are paying a slightly higher bill to help those who are in the scheme. Every month, those in energy-intensive industries such as ceramics have bills that are slightly higher than they would otherwise be, to allow other energy-intensive industries to have lower bills. That is an anomaly in the system that I do not think was intentional, but it means that places like Stoke-on-Trent are, essentially, subsidising steel mills in Scunthorpe and cement and brick manufacturers elsewhere.

I hope that the Minister will take away the point that extending access to the scheme and lowering the threshold of deductions that can be made would be an incredibly useful and powerful way to demonstrate support for foundational manufacturing sectors such as ceramics, which are key to our national defence, our house building programme and our gift and tableware exports, which provide a balance of trade in favour of the UK because of what we produce and where we send it. That would also support producers of advanced ceramics that are used in telecommunications and bioindustry, the refractories that are needed for glassmaking and ceramic making, and the emerging ceramic technologies that will be used in small modular reactors and for plating turbine blades at Rolls-Royce. There is a whole sector of industry that is not getting enough support. Will the Minister share any thoughts that he may have about extending the scheme?

A further point is that to access the support, businesses have to demonstrate through the business level test that 20% of their gross value added is taken up by electricity. Some energy-intensive industries will never reach that, because gas is a component of their energy costs. The ceramics sector, for example, is massively energy-intensive but predominantly gas-based. I suggest to the Minister that he needs to change how he applies the energy cost calculation for GVA to access the scheme so that it includes both gas and electricity, even if the discount comes only on electricity.

There are producers in the ceramics sector who would dearly love to move towards the electrification of kilns and other products that are currently gas-powered, but the disproportionately high cost of electricity makes that uneconomical. Even if they did so, they would still fall foul of the business level test, because so much gas would still be needed. They face a double whammy, with a higher electricity bill while they still have to pay for gas.

As costs increase in a variety of other areas, not least the raw materials, I know that for some companies in the supercharger scheme the 20% threshold is getting closer and closer to 19%, because it is a proportion of the overall costs. In future amendments, will the Minister consider the 20% threshold to make sure that we do not inadvertently see companies falling out of the supercharger scheme as energy becomes a smaller proportion of their overall cost, not because their electricity costs have come down but because their other costs have grown?

I understand that the Government will be using genuine public money to make up the difference between the 60% and the 90% threshold. If it transpires that the demand for the scheme is such that the money available does not cover the additional costs for companies with the new 90% reduction, is there any mechanism to stop electricity suppliers putting up their tariffs on other energy-intensive users to make up the difference between what they are receiving from the Government to compensate their loss and what they are passing on to their customers? We could end up with a perverse system in which a greater discount is being given to some energy-intensive suppliers, while ceramics companies in Stoke-on-Trent are paying an even larger electricity bill.

Overall, the intention behind the draft regulations is good, but there are some nuances that we can work on. If the Minister is willing to extend the scheme to include the ceramics sector, there will be a lot of happy potters in Stoke-on-Trent.

Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 General Committees

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I want to make a couple of quick remarks, partly in relation to the ceramics industry—I am a one-trick pony at these events.

The sector is very grateful that it is not included in CBAM, for some of the reasons that have already been discussed. The current arrangements in the sector are quite challenging. I know the Minister is acutely aware of that, and has been a steadfast ally in some of our work to seek long-term support for a sector that is very difficult to decarbonise—it is incredibly difficult to improve on the technology because of the way in which it is set up—but is also producing things that are integral to the Government’s missions, whether that be house bricks for our house building programme or advanced ceramics to support our defence industry, our growing exports, our pharmaceuticals or the factories that we need, because we cannot make steel in this country without ceramics.

Let me put a couple of questions to the Minister. The first is on the allocation of free allowances. I recognise that CBAM will reduce the free allowance allocations that are put to those sectors that will be a part of it. Would it be possible to consider a reallocation of those free allowances to a sector that is not in CBAM and does not necessarily want to be, but for which the decarbonisation programme is most difficult—namely, the ceramics sector? We are still at huge risk of carbon leakage. We work in an unfair market at the moment, not least because of the way in which non-market economy status countries import into this country. The Trade Remedies Authority, which was set up by the previous Government, does not necessarily have the teeth to levy the import tariffs necessary to create a level playing field for consumers.

Secondly, where does the Minister see the cap going in future years? I am aware that a consultation was started by, I believe, the right hon. Member for East Surrey when she was the Secretary of State in the last Government, on how we could incentivise decarbonisation through raising taxation on the most polluting sectors. The Minister will be aware that the ceramics sector is desperately trying to do all that it can to reduce its output of greenhouse gases, but that is really difficult when it has to run a kiln at several hundred degrees for many hours to do the bisque and the glaze firing, and run refractories for 12 to 14 hours at 1,500°C.

Electrification is not available to many of those businesses at the moment, because the capital to invest in those sorts of kilns is simply not available; the profit margins on their products do not allow for it. Hydrogen is not a technology that is yet proven to be viable because of the chemistry that necessarily takes place inside a kiln. We are wedded to gas for the foreseeable future, and therefore wedded to being one of the country’s last remaining polluting industries. What the sector fears is that, as we move at pace to meet some of the decarbonisation agendas and reduce the overall cap through the emissions trading scheme, that will mean that the free allowances also have to come down, which will push the ceramics sector into having to buy many more free allowances. That cost will then simply be passed on to consumers, or—

[Richard Tice]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gareth Snell]

I will not, I am afraid. That will not then allow the sector to put in the investment needed to bring down the factories’ outputs through new technology. When the Minister sums up, will he address those two points? The sector—I think I am meeting them later today—will be glad to hear him do so.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

We want businesses to grow, innovate, expand, invest, find new markets here and overseas, develop new products and new services, and bring them successfully to market. That often requires two forms of financial support from Government: grants and loans. That is why the Bill builds on two different Acts of Parliament: the Industrial Development Act 1982, which provides grants to industry in the UK, and the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991, which enables financial support by means of investment finance.

Of course, as Trade Minister, I am ambitious about trying to get more UK companies to export. It is a shame that only one in 10 British businesses exports, compared with three out of 10 French businesses and four out of 10 German businesses. If we could match the ambition of other countries, that would be a significant boost to the UK economy.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Oh, all right.

[Gareth Snell]

It’s nice to be loved, isn’t it, Madam Deputy Speaker? I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward the Bill. On exports, the world-leading ceramics industry in Stoke-on-Trent tells me that there used to be a fund that allowed companies to get help with the cost of going to trade expositions or being part of trade delegations, and that meant they could take their wares around the world to try to get those all-important exports. That fund no longer exists. If that fund could be brought back, I know that ceramics companies in Stoke would appreciate the opportunity to export, as this country is trying to do. Will the Minister look at that?

[Chris Bryant]

There are funds. Especially when there is a new free trade agreement, as in relation to India at the moment, we help lots of businesses. Businesses in the beauty industry, which I know my hon. Friend knows a lot about, have gone to a recent exhibition in India, because under the FTA, India will be taking the tariff down from, I think, 20% or so to zero. That is a big opportunity for British businesses. There are sometimes funds available.

I will look at how the ceramics industry in particular is treated. As my hon. Friend knows, I would like to establish stronger support for the ceramics industry in general, because we should be proud of it. As he also knows, I am looking at the presents that we as Government Ministers give to other Government Ministers; we could be a bit more ambitious about ensuring that they are things that people really want, and perhaps they could come from one of our creative industries, such as ceramics.

Free trade agreements can get rid of tariffs, and that is a very important way of enabling more exports, but we can also often do a great deal by getting rid of the non-tariff barriers that exist in many countries. Export ambition, even from companies that would like to export, often needs financial assistance. That is precisely what UK Export Finance is there for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Let me be clear at the outset that the Liberal Democrats support the Bill. We do so because we recognise that British businesses need backing to compete globally, and both the industrial support package and the export finance package have vital roles to play in that. The increases proposed in the Bill represent a major expansion in Government capacity and give us the opportunity to ensure that that expansion serves our priorities as a country: supporting small businesses, driving green growth and maintaining proper democratic oversight.

Small business owners have told me that the current system simply does not work for them. UK Export Finance’s processes are designed for larger transactions, larger businesses and those that are already exporting. UK Export Finance’s criteria state clearly that in any one of the last three years at least 20%, or in each of the last three years at least 5%, of a business’s annual turnover needs to be made up from export sales, but those thresholds mean that businesses trying to break into the export market, or those growing still quite modest export activity, cannot access support. As we expand UK Export Finance’s capacity, let us make sure that the commitment made is about not just bigger deals and bigger companies, but making UK Export Finance work for smaller businesses—the backbone of British exports—with simpler application processes, lower eligibility thresholds for SMEs and dedicated support teams made up of those who really understand SMEs the best.

As the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) said, we also need to understand the elephant in the room, which is that we are discussing expanding capacity of UK Export Finance at precisely the moment when British exporters face unprecedented challenges with our largest trading partner, the EU. The Chartered Institute of Export and International Trade has documented the impact, saying that among the smallest firms—those with six employees or fewer—the value of their exports to the EU fell by 30% after the trade and co-operation agreement was struck; meanwhile, firms with more than 107 employees were largely unaffected.

The Institute of Directors’ January 2025 “Policy Voice” survey found that 54.8% of businesses that previously exported and have stopped cited as a reason the UK’s trading relationship with the EU. More than half of former exporters surveyed gave up because of the barriers to trade with Europe. We are not talking about businesses that have failed to break into distant markets; we are talking about established exporters abandoning our nearest and largest market because the barriers have become insurmountable.

The priority for small manufacturers is assistance in navigating customs declarations and rules of origin to sell in Europe. These are markets they have served for decades, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a fundamental reset of our relationship with Europe—a new bespoke UK-EU customs union that would cut through red tape, boost gross domestic product by an estimated 2.2% and generate roughly £25 billion in tax revenues, according to the House of Commons Library.

[Gareth Snell]

I hate to burst the hon. Gentleman’s bubble, but in 2019, when this House was grappling with how to take forward Brexit, there was a vote on 1 April on a proposal from the then Member for Rushcliffe, now Lord Clarke, on staying in the customs union. I voted for that, as did my party, but it failed by three votes. Five Members from his party, including the now party leader, voted against that proposal, on the basis that trying to kill any deal might keep us in the European Union. I appreciate the position he is coming from, but one of the reasons we do not have a customs union today is the actions of his party many years ago.

[Mr Reynolds]

In reality, we need to look at the positions that were on the table at the time. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the positions that both our parties took when the votes were happening. Obviously I was not in the House at the time, but I recall watching and listening to colleagues on the Labour Benches opposing various things that we put forward. The proposal that the Liberal Democrats are putting forward today would add £25 billion a year to the revenue coming into the Treasury. That money is not to be sniffed at, and it should be supported across the whole House.

In discussing the doubling of UK Export Finance’s capacity to £160 billion, we need to ask ourselves whether that extra money is going to address the export challenges that British businesses actually face. Despite the fundamental barriers to the markets, the Government’s answer is simply to expand capacity, without addressing whether that capacity will be able to reach the businesses that need it most.

While I appreciate that, according to its 2024-25 annual report, UK Export Finance put in £14.5 billion of new finance, that only supported 667 UK businesses to grow and invest. UK Export Finance’s business plan for 2024 to 2029 clearly states its five-year milestones, including that it wants to support an extra 1,000 SMEs to export every year until 2029. That target was introduced under the previous Government, but it has not been amended under the current Government. Considering that there are 5.7 million SMEs in the UK and that facilitating export is a critical tool for economic growth, that number seems pitifully small. I would value the Minister’s thoughts on whether that target of 1,000 is his target and whether it can be improved. It is my hope that the Bill will ultimately support a more ambitious target for UK Export Finance. It would be stronger if we acknowledged the reality of supporting small businesses and removed the practical barriers that stop SMEs from exporting.

That brings me to my final point: parliamentary oversight. We are to spend £20 billion on industry assistance and guarantee up to £160 billion for export finance. This House deserves more than just retrospective annual reports. Fundamentally, these are political decisions about which sectors succeed, which regions benefit and how Britain competes globally. We need to have regular parliamentary scrutiny of spending decisions, transparent criteria for allocating support and proper impact assessments that show whether the funding is actually working. The assessments must show not just how much has been spent but whether it is reaching the businesses that need it the most and delivering the economic growth that we were promised.

We support the Bill. The Government have brought forward legislation that recognises that British businesses need backing, but British businesses need proper industry and export support that is strategically directed, environmentally responsible, democratically accountable and rooted in the challenges that they actually face. I hope that the Bill will deliver that.

Employment Rights Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman misses the point that I am making. Currently, there is no financial incentive for very senior executives who cannot exercise any leverage over things such as pay and equity, and the Bill risks clogging up the system. The CEOs of large UK corporations earn a median salary of over £4 million, compared with the £118,000 cap on unfair dismissal claims, so high earners have little incentive to lodge claims. Remove the cap and that incentive becomes glaringly obvious.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bradley Thomas]

I will make progress.

The idea that removing the cap will lead to anything other than a surge in cases is pure fantasy. This lack of understanding shows why the Government must listen to those who know how business works and recognise the devastating consequences that the Bill will have for companies and, crucially, for workers, rather than branding themselves champions of working people while advancing policies that benefit only high-fliers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I do not believe the hon. Gentleman is correct to attribute that cause to carbon taxes or energy costs, but I share his concern about the lack of British steel and other British materials being used in construction projects funded by the taxpayer. I believe that the taxpayer expects materials for such projects to largely be sourced from the UK. That is why I had cause over the last couple of weeks to speak to British Petroleum about its use of Chinese steel in energy projects. I will continue to call in the chief executives of companies and discuss with them how we will increase British content in British projects.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The UK ceramics sector is one of the most gas and electricity-intensive industries in the UK, so I make my usual plea to the Minister to consider changes to the supercharger scheme ahead of the British industrial competitiveness scheme coming online. Will he also give some thought to the electrification process? There are parts of the ceramics sector that would like to electrify, but the industrial grid capacity simply does not exist yet. What will the Government do to allow those companies to move forward with electrification, which ultimately will help to bring down their energy bills?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the incredibly constructive Westminster Hall debate we had last week on the ceramics industry, which was supported by my hon. Friend and other Members representing ceramics constituencies around the Stoke and Staffordshire area.

I recognise my hon. Friend’s call for ceramics to be considered under the review of the supercharger scheme, and I have ensured that those calls have been heard within the Department. I want to ensure that ceramics is considered very carefully as part of that. I also appreciate the continued commitment of Ceramics UK, which I met with last week, and the rest of the ceramics industry to work together with me to see how we can improve the competitiveness of the industry.

Seasonal Work

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

My right hon. Friend is correct: having people who have run a business is good for Government. I am sorry to hear that Labour Members do not believe that their Cabinet would be better if there were a few more pro-business people in it. I can assure him that most of his constituents agree.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have some affection for the hon. Gentleman, and he has a lovely smile. Can he tell me how many members of the shadow Cabinet—or Conservative Members who serve on the Opposition Front Bench—have ever had to sustain a long-term position on low-paid, insecure work while raising a family? Those voices are equally important in this debate.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I, too, have a great deal of affection for the hon. Gentleman; we go back quite a long way from when we were elected. We need to recognise that there are Members on both sides of the House who come from poor or modest backgrounds, and it is simply not true to say that the Conservative Benches are full of posh people and the Labour Benches are not. The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the House in trying to give an alternative impression.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady has obviously been speaking to her constituents and businesses in her constituency, and young people are of course extremely disappointed and feel let down by this Government and their economic philosophy. That is why the Budget announcement followed by this other announcement—“Oh, we’re now going to kind of help them a little bit with some public money”—is just bizarre. It shows that they do not get basic economics, and that is hitting young people in particular.

[Gareth Snell]

Under a Conservative council and a Conservative Government, Stoke-on-Trent had one of highest levels—if not the highest level—of NEETs anywhere in the country. The number is now coming down, but what does the hon. Member think was the reason why my city had to endure that under his Government and his council? Would he accept that it was partly because economic growth was not felt equitably across this country, and that economic growth that takes place only in one part of the country is equally as damaging as much of what he is professing is damaging today?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I do agree with some the principles the hon. Gentleman articulates about the need for economic growth outside the M25 as well. London is a great dynamo—it needs to be London-plus—but we do need to make sure we grow across the country. That was, of course, exactly the point of the levelling-up agenda. However, I am afraid we cannot have this wishful thinking of forgetting that both the economic crisis in 2008 and of course the pandemic and other global crises had a major impact on the economy, and therefore economies around the world were challenged. The difference now is that our economy is doing badly uniquely because of Labour Government decisions. That is the difference.

The national insurance increases in last year’s Budget alone cost the hospitality industry more than £1 billion. The business rates increases that it now faces make matters even worse. This is not so much giving with one hand and taking with the other; it is giving with one hand, then punching them in the face and giving them a good kicking when they are down on the ground. That is an appalling attitude to take towards business, but that is this Government’s attitude.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

I have yet to see any pub with any such sign. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke about how disastrous the implementation of the future high streets fund was on the ground, and we are trying to learn lessons from that.

The hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham also criticised the Employment Rights Bill. I compared him to Scrooge earlier, but I am sorry to say that on this subject he was even less charitable than Dickens’s great character. Scrooge famously wanted his workers to have regular hours over Christmas—indeed, he insisted on it—but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to want that. Even Scrooge by the end of the story gave Bob Cratchit a pay rise so that his family could enjoy Christmas, but the hon. Gentleman is arguing against that.

[Gareth Snell]

I remember sitting on the Opposition Benches when the Conservatives were in government. They were trumpeting their increase in the minimum wage and saying that the creation of the living wage was a demonstration of their commitment to helping low-paid people in this country. Does the Minister worry that, if we extrapolate the point that the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham has been making to its natural conclusion, the Conservatives are actually advocating a cut in the minimum wage as a way to help businesses, which would be detrimental to the thousands of people in Stoke-on-Trent who rely on that money to pay their bills?

[Blair McDougall]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Again, the Conservatives do not understand the link between what is in people’s pockets and what goes into the tills. I spent a fantastic day with my hon. Friend and his local businesses last week, and I was impressed by how those at the businesses were all on first-name terms with him.

Advanced Ceramics Industry: North Staffordshire

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I talked to the hon. Lady before we came into the Chamber, and it would be really good if we could advance the ceramics industry, as she has argued. It would also be good to give opportunities to young people through apprenticeships and education in science, technology, engineering and maths. Does she see that as a critical aspect as we move forward? I congratulate her and the whole Stoke team on how well they work together.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

And Leicestershire.

[Jim Shannon]

Sorry—and Leicestershire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

The Minister mentioned electricity prices. I have repeatedly asked the Government to consider the expansion of the supercharger scheme for current industrial use by the ceramics sector. That would be a massive help before the British industrial competitiveness scheme comes online. I know the Minister is going to outline a series of significant things that he believes the Government could do to support the ceramics sector. I encourage him to consider working with the APPG on a bespoke ceramics strategy that would be cross-departmental and cross-Government, so that the support that I know he desperately wants to offer us can be replicated across Government, so that when we have these debates in the future, we can talk about how we implement the help that we need rather than talk about the help we hope we can get.

[Chris McDonald]

Although the compensation scheme I outlined is delivering £1.7 million to eight ceramics firms, I am acutely aware that it does not cover the vast majority of the sector. I met today with the chief executive of Ceramics UK. We discussed this issue and the fact that eligibility for the scheme is up for review in 2026. I have committed to working closely with him to see what opportunity there will be to extend the scheme to other ceramics firms and to ensure that the review takes every opportunity to see whether there is the potential for greater eligibility for ceramics firms. I am always happy to work with the APPG. Perhaps we can take my hon. Friend’s suggestion further and have further discussions about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

By elucidating the trade deal with India and the deal that we hope to strike with the Gulf Co-operation Council, I am hoping to outline the fact that there is not only a commitment to trade that will enable UK producers to access markets, but a commitment to fair trade. That is far easier done within the bounds of a free trade agreement where there are existing mechanisms in place. That is why our Department is working so hard to ensure that we get additional coverage of free trade agreements through various jurisdictions around the world.

Turning back to the Gulf Co-operation Council agreement, the UK is currently a net importer of ceramics from the Gulf states. Reducing UK tariffs has been identified as one of the GCC’s priorities. Our objective is to secure provisions that support competitiveness and growth across the UK while safeguarding UK manufacturing interests.

I understand that there is more work to be done to support our local ceramics firms that may be at risk from cheap imports from abroad. The standard response to this—I will give it and then qualify it, if that is acceptable—is to encourage ceramics companies to engage with the Trade Remedies Authority. However, I am aware of the significant burden that imposes in terms of cost and time, so I would encourage hon. Members who are in touch with ceramics companies in their areas—I will continue my engagement with Ceramics UK—to carefully monitor the ability of those companies to engage with the Trade Remedies Authority and to ensure that it is possible for their issues to be raised. If there are concerns about time and cost, I would appreciate it if they were raised with me directly.

[Gareth Snell]

If the Minister is looking at the Trade Remedies Authority, perhaps he could also look at the lesser duty rule, under which a product imported from China or the EU would face a higher tariff under their remedies than it does in the UK, because we have deliberately set our system to apply the lesser duty rather than the injury duty. It is technical, but it would make a big difference if he could consider that.

[Chris McDonald]

It is a very technical issue, and I have thought of little else since my hon. Friend explained it to me in great detail a few days ago. I will certainly commit to continuing to think about it, and I thank him for bringing it to my attention and placing it on the record.

Critical Minerals Strategy

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of copper; I raised it nearly 10 years ago. Copper was not included in previous strategies because it was not regarded as a critical mineral. I am pleased to say that the new strategy creates a new category of growth minerals: minerals that do not fit the definition of critical minerals but are important for the future, and which we need in order to grow. The recycling and secondary refining aspect is also a priority for me; all of our copper is currently extracted and taken overseas for smelting and refining, but there is a good opportunity for us to do that in the UK.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister talks about things that are smelted, melted, forged and formed, and he will know that ceramics are crucial to those processes. He will also know that to deliver his ambitions for growth and recovery, and for virgin production, there will need to be an expansion of those processes. Is he having conversations with British Ceramics about how we can get refractory level ceramics in a better position to compete? Today’s announcement of the British industrial competitiveness scheme mentions foundational industries with a “certain threshold” of electrical usage. He will know that the processes he needs to get the strategy that he wants require gas, so are conversations happening about how the gas prices will underpin this strategy as well?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend correctly points out the essential role of ceramic refractories in the production of any high temperature processes, including critical minerals. I would be very happy to meet him later this evening to discuss both issues further.