Terrorism Candidacy Curbs Weighed, Ceramics Seek Energy Lifeline

High-Level Summary

Westminster Hall held two e‑petition debates. The first examined whether people with terrorism convictions should be disqualified from standing for elected office, considering legal proportionality, overseas convictions and the Northern Ireland context. The Minister said the defending democracy taskforce is examining the issue and any change must be precise, proportionate and legally robust, while pointing to other electoral integrity measures under way. The second debate focused on support for the ceramics industry, with Members highlighting acute energy‑cost pressures, calling for changes to the British industry supercharger, and noting the Government’s £120 million support package alongside decarbonisation plans. Both debates ended with the customary resolution that the House had considered the petitions; no divisions on the motions were recorded.

Detailed Summary

Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences (e‑petition 759385)

Context and participants: John Lamont opened, arguing that those convicted of terrorism offences should not be permitted to stand for office, saying, “holding elected office is not an automatic right. It is a privilege” and, “Terrorism is not an ordinary crime. It is an attack on democracy itself.”. He cited the case of Shahid Butt as exposing a perceived gap in the law and noted that the Government’s response had said there were “no plans” to change the rules. He proposed a legal disqualification: “The petition proposes a straightforward legal disqualification”. Contributors included Laurence Turner, Robbie Moore, Jim Allister, Zöe Franklin, David Simmonds and Sorcha Eastwood (by intervention).

Key arguments: Supporters of change argued that terrorism fundamentally undermines democracy and public confidence. Robbie Moore said, “we should never be in a situation where someone convicted of terrorism can stand for office”, and criticised the current stance that there are “no plans to change the disqualification criteria”. Jim Allister urged that any reform “must act on a UK‑wide basis”. Laurence Turner cautioned that overseas convictions could be politicised: “Authoritarian regimes routinely misuse terrorism laws against political opponents”, while noting “the people of Sparkhill rejected Mr Butt’s candidature. He lost decisively”. Zöe Franklin said “terrorism and national security offences are different” and supported “giving courts the power to issue longer disqualification orders”. David Simmonds said, “We pledge to work with the Government to seek to address this issue”.

Government response, decision and next steps: The Minister, Alison McGovern, said the defending democracy taskforce “is looking carefully at the issue”, emphasised that “making a false statement is a criminal offence”, and cautioned: “Any exclusion such as that proposed must be principled, proportionate and legally robust.”. She highlighted measures in the Representation of the People Bill—“Requiring candidates to submit ID and sign a declaration”—and plans to strengthen local government standards with “a mandatory code of conduct…[and]…sanctions” when time allows. The motion was agreed to in the usual form: “Question put and agreed to.”. No commitment to specific legislation was made; the Minister indicated ongoing consideration via the taskforce and related electoral integrity work.

Support for the Ceramics Industry (e‑petition 764785)

Context and participants: Dave Robertson introduced the petition, setting out recent pressures, including a kiln closure and job losses at Armitage Shanks and Denby’s administration, and called for the British industry supercharger to be extended to ceramics. He welcomed the Government’s “£120 million package of targeted support” and urged a simple, fast scheme, better public procurement of British ceramics and clearer country‑of‑origin rules. Members from across the UK contributed, including Sir Gavin Williamson, Linsey Farnsworth, Gareth Snell, Adam Jogee, David Williams, Allison Gardner, Andrew Cooper, Simon Opher, Juliet Campbell, Amanda Hack, Noah Law and Joshua Reynolds.

Key arguments: Energy costs—especially gas—were identified as the chief pressure. As Sir Gavin Williamson put it: “The core issue here is energy costs”; “Some 86% of the energy costs for ceramics manufacturers come from not electricity but gas.”. Several noted that “only 10% of ceramics businesses are able to apply” for the supercharger and that “The SIC codes in use for ceramics are not currently eligible for the scheme”. Concerns about unfair imports were raised, including “the dumping of heavily subsidised products from overseas markets”. Members supported the new package—“the ceramics industry support package…contains £120 million”—and wanted it “made speedily and widely available”.

Government response, decision and next steps: The Minister for Industry, Chris McDonald, acknowledged closures—“Manufacturing has now ceased at Denby Pottery”—and said, “we are determined that the scheme will have the maximum eligibility to enable firms to win support for both capital and operating expenses”. He noted additional help via the British industrial competitiveness scheme for advanced and technical ceramics “from 2027, backdated to the current year”, and encouraged firms to “engage with the Trade Remedies Authority” on unfair trade. The sitting was briefly paused—“Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.”—before concluding with the standard resolution: “Resolved”. Scheme design and implementation timelines were not stated in the transcript; Ministers indicated ongoing work to maximise eligibility and support decarbonisation.