Ceramics Industry

Noah Law Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[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 ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I declare my interest as a member of GMB union, and of Unite, which represents so many of the china clay workers in my constituency. That is one reason I welcome so warmly this Government’s £120 million package for the ceramics industry. I particularly welcome the £60 million of backing for capital investment in energy efficiency and decarbonisation, and the further £60 million to help manage rising costs. That is decisive support for a sector that has every right not just to survive, but to thrive in a changing world in which Governments have an absolute obligation to ensure a smooth transition.

In this world, protecting the supply of china clay is vital to insulating supply chains for not just ceramics, but construction, advanced manufacturing, technology, aerospace and defence. Domestic production is only truly protected for any industry when the whole supply chain is. In my constituency, upstream producers of Cornish china clay are part of the foundation of the ceramics sector, directly and indirectly employing thousands of local people in Cornwall. It is our strongest current mining industry, serving as a big granitic bridge between our industrial heritage and the mineral products of the future.

I will take a moment to thank the Minister for his excellent leadership in this sector, and for his lucid understanding of those supply chains and the fact that minerals represent quite clearly the biggest Cornwall-specific growth engine in the years ahead. I thank him for his work, with his Department, to help unlock the potential of that key industrial cluster for us. May I ask him, however, whether he will confirm that upstream producers, including those that extract china clay, will be eligible for the support? Can he provide me and my constituents with some clarity on when those decisions about who receives the support will be clear? Will he outline what steps he is taking for an industry with high energy costs upstream—again, ineligible for BICS, the British industrial competitiveness scheme—and facing not only the huge challenges of foreign dumping practices but, in many cases, significant environmental and legacy pension liabilities due to the labour-intensive nature of its workforce? What steps is he taking to ensure that we put that industry on a more sustainable footing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Cooper]

rose—

[Noah Law]

rose—

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I will not give way, given how tight we are for time.

I hope Members will welcome the fact that the Conservatives have a clear and credible plan to cut energy bills, reduce regulation and lower taxes. We have a cheap power plan that will cut household energy bills by £200 a year and cut electricity bills for businesses by 20%. That could save ceramics businesses a large amount of money. It would save the average restaurant £5,500 and the average pub £1,100. We would achieve that by axing the carbon tax in full, including the UK emissions trading scheme and carbon price support.

We would also scrap the renewables obligation certificate scheme, which would free up money that is currently used to fund the payments through general taxation. We would back the North sea and get Britain drilling again, unlocking home-grown energy and generating an estimated £2.5 billion in additional tax revenues each year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

This replays some of the conversations we have had on the Floor of the House. Ultimately, it is important to remember that the prices we are quoting take into account both the capital and operating costs. Our existing gas fleet would also require renewal if it was to continue beyond the mid-2030s, so there would be a capital and operating cost element for that as well.

[Noah Law]

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

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend put it exactly right. We need to take both capital and operating costs into account. Fundamentally, the issue comes down to a belief or view—or, in my case, looking at the economic evidence and corporate finance. Is it possible to decarbonise and reindustrialise? Yes, of course it is, and that is precisely what the Government want to do. No one in the industry is asking us to tear up climate policy—they are using the policy to invest, and have invested £100 billion since the general election on that basis.

Many people mentioned the supercharger scheme, which currently supports around 10% of the ceramics industry. Quite obviously, 10% is not 100%, but the recent uplift in the scheme to 90% compensation has benefited members. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will offer further support on advanced and technical ceramics from 2027, backdated to the current year. That will reduce electricity bills by up to £40 per megawatt hour.