Harland & Wolff
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(3 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. The famous yellow gantry of Harland & Wolff stands tall, not only on the skyline of Belfast but in the history of our nation. It is difficult to overstate what Harland & Wolff means to people in the communities of Belfast, Appledore, Arnish and Methil. Extended families across the country will welcome today’s confirmation that the shipbuilding contract that we awarded in government will now proceed. There remain, however, many unanswered questions, which I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could answer. If he cannot answer them at the Dispatch Box today, I would be grateful if he or the Defence Secretary would write in the coming days.
First, at a time of enormous geopolitical uncertainty, can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no change to the in-service date of the three fleet solid support ships, with the first ship entering service as expected in the fourth quarter of 2028? Secondly, what funding or commitment, if any, has been provided by any part of the Government to Navantia to secure this finalised deal? If so, which budget will that be appropriated from? Has he received state aid clearance for the transaction and, if not, could he clarify the process by which that will now be obtained?
The Secretary of State said in his statement that the Department has agreed the
“absolute minimum of changes to the contract,”
but the statement provides absolutely nothing whatsoever as to what that actually conceals. Can he guarantee, as Navantia promised as part of its original bid for the contract, that no less than 60% of the whole supply chain activity will take place in the UK? Will he confirm that there are no additional work packages beyond those originally envisaged moving from Belfast or anywhere in the UK to Puerto Real in Cádiz? Above all, will he assure the workers and their families who are watching that the final assembly and systems integration, which is where much of the high-value work sits for all three of those vital ships, will take place in Belfast, rather than in Navantia’s parent shipyards in Spain?
The Secretary of State will appreciate that it is sometimes hard, though one tries, to take him at his word after the number of impacts on business over the past few months. The wider context—though welcome in respect of this particular contract and these defence jobs—is the large-scale uncertainty that our defence companies, contractors, workers and employees face about the timetable for the Government to reach 2.5% on defence spending. They do not have the certainty that Harland & Wolff workers now do this Christmas. We do not even have a timeline for a timeline as to when that 2.5% will be hit, and we have seen a degree of equivocation on exactly when the strategic defence review will be published. Again, I would be grateful if the Secretary of State clarified that or if a colleague wrote to me.
It is, at the end of the day, action not words. We welcome this deal for Harland & Wolff and the certainty that it will provide to workers and their families, and I thank the Department officials for their work on that, but there are still many questions to be answered.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Secretary of State. Having served in his Department, I too will be paying close attention to the answer.
Post Office Redress and Funding
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
As shadow Secretary of State, I can say on behalf of every Conservative Member that we are committed to working collaboratively with the Government to deliver the appropriate redress to all those affected by the Horizon scandal and any issues relating to the Capture software. Many of the actions on which the Minister has updated the House were initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). As my hon. Friend has said, Ministers will have our full support in the swift delivery of redress and the overturning of the convictions of those affected by this wide-ranging scandal. The Conservative party welcomes the redress schemes that have been implemented to remedy the gross miscarriages of justice that have affected hundreds of families across the country. Our only focus now must be on processing claims to get those schemes completed as quickly as possible.
There remain a number of questions following the Minister’s statement that I would be grateful if he would clarify. I understand that the Kroll report did not publish any conclusions about the safety of criminal convictions. The Horizon advisory group had already recommended that the Government introduce legislation to overturn the convictions of postmasters who fell victim to the Capture scheme. I read that the Government have deferred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission on that matter. Could the Minister update us on what conversations he has had with the CCRC in relation to the process of overturning convictions?
The redress that the Minister has announced is welcome news, but there remains a lack of specific detail on how the affected parties can expect progress. Will he set out a timeline for the redress of postmasters affected by Capture? He said that he has instructed the Post Office to write to 16,000 potentially affected former postmasters, urging them to come forward if they believe they have a claim to make, and that those letters have been sent. Can he confirm when they were sent?
Is the Minister able to provide an update on his conversations with Fujitsu? How much has Fujitsu contributed to date? What meetings has he had, and where are we on that important aspect of this process? It was concerning to learn back in September that only a small handful of claims had been offered redress through the Horizon convictions redress scheme and, at that point, no full and final settlements had been made through that scheme. Could the Minister reassure the House that the Government are not just opening the door to those claims, but managing the process of getting them heard, resolved, and ultimately redressed? I was pleased to hear that additional staff have been seconded to facilitate the compensation scheme—I welcome that and thank the Minister—but can he confirm how many have been seconded and from where, and can he give the House an assurance that they will remain seconded for as long as is necessary?
Finally, we welcome the Government’s announcement of £37.5 million of network subsidy. It was announced in yesterday’s written ministerial statement, and it is indeed welcome news. The Minister said that it is for this year, so would he clarify whether that relates to the period up until the end of March 2025? What certainty is there of funding beyond that period so that we can all proceed on a sustainable footing? Is it only for this year, or does it also cover the fiscal year 2025-26?
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his willingness to work with us collaboratively on providing redress not only to the victims of the Horizon scandal, but to the victims of the Capture software issues.
The shadow Secretary of State referenced the Kroll report. As he and, I suspect, other Members of the House who have followed this issue closely will be aware, Kroll did not take a specific view on convictions. We are aware that a small number of sub-postmasters—those who believed they were victims of using the Capture software, given the shortfalls it generated and the way they were treated by the Post Office as a result—have referred their claims to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. We have instructed the Post Office to work at speed to review what evidence it can provide to the CCRC to help it make decisions on the safety of those convictions. Similarly, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is looking at a number of cases, and we have similarly instructed the Post Office to co-operate with it as quickly as it can.
On Capture redress, yesterday we met sub-postmasters who have campaigned on Capture, and indeed Lord Beamish, to update them on the steps we will take. We will work at pace. As I said in my statement, we face a significant challenge with the amount of evidence available. For example, no central record has as yet been found of the number of Capture users or of who they were. We are nevertheless going to be working to design a redress scheme. We will consult sub-postmasters and the Horizon compensation advisory board. As I have said, I will bring forward an update on where we have got to by next spring.
On the 16,000 letters that the Post Office has sent out, I can confirm that they have gone out very recently—the shadow Secretary of State will forgive me if I do not have the exact dates. He rightly aired again the concern about the responsibility of Fujitsu, which is felt across the House. I am sure that he will recognise that we need to wait for Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry to report, to give us a better understanding of the scale of Fujitsu’s responsibilities and, therefore, its potential liabilities. We have said that we will respond to the inquiry’s recommendations at pace, and certainly within six months. I am sure that he will opine on Fujitsu, and we will respond accordingly.
On the Horizon convictions redress scheme, the then Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), and I had the pleasure of appearing before the Business and Trade Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), to update it on progress in overturning the convictions following the legislation last summer. She committed the Ministry to completing its work of assessing the cases by the end of January, and I understand that it still intends to do so. We have already paid out some £79 million as part of our responsibilities to provide redress to those whose convictions were overturned.
Lastly, on the network subsidy uplift, the shadow Secretary of State will understand that the money is just for this year. Spending review discussions are taking place across Government, and the Post Office is an active part of those discussions.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I remind the Secretary of State that these are topical questions, and contributions should be short. I come to the shadow Secretary of State for a good example.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
One of the great British innovations is the gift of free trade, lifting billions out of poverty abroad and increasing prosperity at home. Thanks to the Conservatives, this week the UK proudly joined the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, a bloc that includes some of the world’s fastest-growing economies, as well as major trading partners and investors, such as Japan and Canada. With the Government having precious little else to show on growth so far, will the Secretary of State update the House on when he expects to conclude free trade deals with the Gulf, with India and with the US?
Jonathan Reynolds
At least we have some things we can agree on there, which is a nice start to the Christmas period. I agree that the UK has always been and must be a champion of free trade in a world where trade issues will be politically significant in 2025. We can work together on that future. We believe that we have progressed the Gulf Co-operation Council trade deal significantly. The shadow Secretary of State will know that there were some problems between the previous Government and some countries in the GCC, particularly the UAE, where the relationship had unfortunately got into a difficult place. We have repaired that and the talks are going well. It is always a mistake to put a deadline on those, because it can limit our negotiating potential. When it comes to the US, we will see what happens with the President-elect, but I am looking forward to negotiation and discussion about that.
Andrew Griffith
The Secretary of State can count on our support to bring those deals forward. It pains me to say it, but as we have heard today, business confidence is at an all-time low, bar the pandemic. Hiring is collapsing and companies are fleeing. Labour has talked growth, but it has delivered decline. The one game changer now would be a US trade deal. Will the Secretary of State urge the Prime Minister to stop obsessing about going backwards into the EU and agree with me at this Christmas time that the best gift for British business would be for the Prime Minister to get on a plane to Washington and talk trade with President Trump?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am afraid that the shadow Secretary of State’s analysis is too simplistic. The US is a major trade partner and always will be, but he will know that so is the European Union and another area is our trade with China. The future for the UK is being positioned to get the maximum benefit from all those key markets. The kind of agreement that he puts forward would have major ramifications for British agriculture in particular, and he knows the issues associated with that. We cannot consider one of those trade negotiations without considering the impact on all those key trading relationships. I ask him to consider the issue in a more holistic and complete way.
Fireworks: Sale and Use
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. What a pleasure it is to be part of this substantial debate. It is the largest petitions debate in which I have ever had the privilege of taking part, and it was opened enormously ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore).
It is clear that this is a matter of great concern across the House, including in my constituency of Arundel and South Downs, where many people, including myself, are great lovers of dogs. We are fortunate to be able to exercise our dogs on the beautiful south downs. There are also many horse owners—my constituency is a big area of equine ownership—so I am familiar with the real challenges created by the deployment of unlicensed explosives over a significant part of the year: it seems that they go off throughout all the autumn months. We also heard about how fireworks are bigger and louder than before. That sounds a bit like the one about policemen getting younger, but I am told that it is objectively the case that fireworks have become bigger and louder.
I congratulate the petitioners, Chloe Brindley and Alan Smith. If Chloe does not mind, I will particularly commend Alan’s bravery in highlighting an issue that has a real personal resonance for him and his family. He has bravely shared his story, and his Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), did it great justice. That is exactly what this debate is all about.
It is clear that, as we have heard from both sides of the Chamber, no action is not the answer. I really hope the Government are listening. Members of my party and others, as well as some of the petitioners, think that although a ban should not be a first resort, it should not be taken off the table as a last resort.
Some of the compliance measures are completely inadequate. We have heard a large menu, to which I invite the Government to respond. I appreciate that it is not always easy to respond at the Dispatch Box, so if we are left a little bit wanting, perhaps the Minister will be so kind as to take the matter away for further consideration. As hon. Members have mentioned, this is not the first time that this House has sought to put in place greater protections.
We heard about the lack of sentences for the improper sale of fireworks; if such sentences had been in place, the tragic death of Alan’s mother might not have happened. We know that our police and blue light forces are under great pressure, but we also know that to govern is to choose. We all have to make choices with limited resources, and it would be good to see this area of criminality targeted.
We heard about a menu of opportunities to tighten up regulations and particularly to restrict the stockpiling of fireworks. Although I am concerned about rushing to a ban that would deny the enjoyment that we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), it is also true that there is no possible reason for people to stockpile explosive fireworks, potentially in residential premises. This is an area that could be looked at again. The same is true of the age limit on purchase. Without answering those questions for the Government, the House should explore all those areas in more detail. I suspect that measures that are couched in the right way and are evidence-led will attract support across the House.
Substantial contributions have been made today. On the Opposition’s part, let me say that we hear them loud and clear. I commend all involved: this has been an excellent use of the House’s time.
Stellantis Luton
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This is a sad day for the 1,100 workers at the Luton Vauxhall factory, and our thoughts are first and foremost with them and their families. They are the most recent custodians in a long history that goes back to 1905, when their factory opened its doors for the first time. Luton-built white vans are icons of British business, representing to many the hard graft and skill of millions of traders, the self-employed and small businesses across this country.
The Opposition stand by those hard-working people. We are on the side of the plant workers, because we know the value of skilled work and the transformative power of British business. The closure of the Luton plant, I fear, is just a down payment on the jobs that will be lost through this Government’s relentless attacks on industry, their neglect of the realities of business, and their failure to meet their promise not to raise taxes. The Government owe it to the plant’s workers to at least be honest. This decision is the direct result of a Government policy that is simply unworkable for industry. Stellantis told us as much when it said that the decision was
“made within the context of the… ZEV mandate”.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said,
“the UK situation is particularly acute with arguably the toughest targets and most accelerated timeline in the world,”
and that
“unsustainable business costs undermine UK industry”.
The Government’s policy on zero emission vehicles is a jobs killer. They say they have been talking since July, so why this panicked U-turn today, when it is already too late? The last Government acknowledged that the previous vehicle mandate was too stringent. We took the decision to push it back, recognising the impact that it would have on industry. We listened to Unite the union on this. The Secretary of State’s party unilaterally reversed those changes and brought the deadline forward to 2030. Instead of listening to Unite, he listened to the Member for climate central, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband).
Even today, the Secretary of State speaks of ending the sale of new purely petrol and diesel cars by 2030. He tried to slip a subtle change in there, the consequences of which are significant. I welcome the fact that, for once, this Government have listened to business, but he appears to be misleading business at the same time. Can he explain exactly what his policy is? As we see today, there are real costs to these targets. Instead of having the courage to recognise that he was wrong, his solution appears to be yet another consultation, which is yet to take place. How many automotive businesses has the Secretary of State spoken to about the targets? In any of his conversations with Stellantis, did it ask him at any point to remove the fines? Has he met the right hon. Member for Doncaster North to entreat him to row back from his ideological pursuit of domestic targets, which ignores the fact British jobs are being exported to more carbon-intensive economies?
Most of all, we must not ignore the elephant in the room: the timing of the decision. It follows a Budget that declared war on business, with a triple whammy of tax rises that remove incentives for growth and investment; a £25 billion jobs tax, which has left boardrooms across the country putting recruitment and pay rises on hold; and an Employment Rights Bill that the Secretary of State wrote while hand in hand with his union paymasters, which is already deterring businesses from hiring in Britain.
Businesses are ringing the alarm bells. The CBI, the British Retail Consortium, UKHospitality and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders have all said that the pressures on business are too much to swallow. In open letter after open letter, statement after statement, they say that Labour is not on their side. It lied about its plans. It is attacking working people, and now it is attacking the vans that they go to work in. The businessmen and women who gave Labour the benefit of the doubt are regretting it. When will the Secretary of State listen? When will his Government abandon their attack on British business? Will he lead the charge to change course? Why will he not suspend the fines and targets that have led to today’s tragedy?
Jonathan Reynolds
That is the single most dishonest statement I have ever heard in my time in this House.
Draft Information Sharing (Disclosure by the Registrar) Regulations 2024
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough on his new ministerial responsibilities. It is my first chance to do that. There could not be a more important role in any Government seeking to drive economic growth than that of the Minister responsible for small businesses, so I wish him well in that role. I hope he will act as a diligent voice for small businesses, including by making representations to the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) after her recent Budget. Small businesses across the country tell me that they are bleeding out as a result of the jobs tax, the family business tax and many other measures. We wish the Minister well, but I hope he is able to be an effective voice.
We are here to talk about the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, and the delegated legislation resulting from it. That builds on the work conducted by the previous Government, particularly by one of my excellent predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). We will be a constructive Opposition. When this Government do the right thing, we will celebrate and support it. In that context, I confirm that the Opposition support the draft regulations.
Future of the Post Office
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for sharing an advance copy with me. Let me add from the Opposition Benches that the victims of the Horizon IT scandal deserve full redress and I welcome the efforts to hasten the roll-out of the payments being made, building on the work of my excellent hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I note that we were promised an update on that particular matter by the Government in mid-November. I am not sure whether that was what the Minister was doing today, but please can he undertake to give this House regular updates on such an important matter?
We also welcome the increased focus on postmasters. That is absolutely right. It is, however, with regret that we learn today that the Post Office feels it has no choice but to begin the process of making radical decisions to reduce costs. How has this come about? In common with many other town centre enterprises, the Post Office’s costs are skyrocketing. Business rates are going up, national insurance contributions are going up, the threshold at which national insurance becomes payable is going down and its obligations around the minimum wage are going up.
There is a direct line of sight connecting today’s announcement and the Chancellor’s Budget, yet the Minister did not mention that once in his statement. The chairman of the Post Office himself said in his speech this morning that those changes have made business more difficult for Post Office branches. That is something for Labour Members to consider. Can the Minister guarantee that the Budget has had no impact on this decision? Alternatively, since that is not the case, does he acknowledge that this was the inevitable consequence of the burdens that his Government are placing on businesses, large and small?
Will the Minister tell us when he first knew of the plans set out by the Post Office today and whether he approved the chairman’s statement? The Post Office chairman has made it clear that these plans are subject to Government funding, so can the Minister make a commitment from the Dispatch Box today that that funding will indeed be coming, and that we will not face six months of uncertainty while those negotiations continue? Did his Government do an impact assessment to determine the cost of the Budget measures on the Post Office and other local services? If they did that impact assessment, will they publish it, and if not, why not? Were they worried that the Post Office would not like the result? The measures in the Government’s Budget were clearly, as we see here today, a jobs tax. After today’s impact on 100 high streets, will the Minister go back to the Chancellor and ask her to nix the NICs increase?
This news is yet another pasting in the onslaught on many rural communities. Thousands of our constituents in communities up and down the country will be waiting in trepidation today to discover the fate of their local post office. Those who rely on their post office are often the most vulnerable in society. What guarantees can the Minister provide that, unlike the family farm tax, this is not a further assault on rural communities from this Government? It was under the last Government that we entered into a new partnership with the Post Office to help millions of people to access Government services and support online, enabling them to visit a post office to confirm their identity in person. That guaranteed to those without the internet that they would not be left behind. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no withdrawal of Government services currently provided through the Post Office?
For many, post offices also provide valuable, vital banking services. I am proud of the role the last Government undertook to launch banking hubs across the country. It was a privilege to see the focus of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), working in the Treasury Committee to drive forward that lifeline for communities from Saltash to Kilkeel. It was encouraging to read in Nigel Railton’s speech this morning that the Post Office has committed to the significant increase in the number of banking hubs to 500 by 2030. We welcome that. However, the devil is in the detail, especially where this Government are concerned. Has the Minister engaged with colleagues in the Treasury to discuss the impact of today’s news on the banking framework negotiations, which are essential to underwrite that roll-out of banking hubs? What support will the Government offer to secure the future of more banking hubs in areas that need them most?
Despite the fact that no one around the Cabinet table has ever set up a business, I would have thought it would be obvious that placing unaccountable burdens on business would push up the cost of wages and employment, and that if they introduced a jobs tax, that would be the consequence. However, that is exactly what this Government have tried to do, and here we are, no less than two weeks later, with our high streets facing the devastating consequences of the Government’s decisions.
Budget Resolutions
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by congratulating our US allies on the election of their 47th president? When it comes to business and trade, America is our most important partner. As our economies are so interlinked, nearly 1.5 million Brits work for American companies, and more than 1.2 million Americans work for British companies. That trade relationship is worth £280 billion a year, and the amount invested in each other’s economies has now surpassed £1 trillion.
The Government may be right to say that there is much to rebuild in Britain today, but what this Budget does, combined with the Government’s nationalisation of railways, Employment Rights Bill, and Great British Energy, is to take us further away from that goal, with higher taxes, more regulation, bigger government and a smaller wealth-producing part of the economy. It is a Budget for prejudice rather than for progress. While Labour Members will praise the Budget for its finer measures and the socialist purity of its design, their constituents can see that, when it comes to growth, the Budget emperor has no clothes. The Office for Budget Responsibility strips it back to its stark, naked flesh. It says that Budget policies temporarily boost output in the near term, but leave GDP largely unchanged in five years. If growth is their central mission, the Government have already failed.
In the harsh light of day, the Secretary of State’s colleagues are starting to realise that the Budget is not such an appealing sell. As was reported on Sunday, Labour Back Benchers have said that the Chancellor’s Budget is impossible to sell to horrified constituents—they have been reading their emails again. One colleague of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade told The Daily Telegraph, “It has been received very badly indeed within the Labour party”. There is a stark contrast between what the OBR is saying and what those on the Government Front Bench are claiming. The chances are that it will not be a growth Budget, as is claimed. All the evidence is that it will have no more growth by the end of it, and it will certainly be paid for by higher effective taxes on working people.
The Secretary of State’s colleagues are right, and no wonder. The private sector experience of the Cabinet could barely fill a beer glass, let alone a boardroom. Conservative Members know that it is business that creates jobs and the prosperity to pay for our public services. Businesses are the builders, and there is no rebuilding without them. That is something that Labour Members simply do not understand. Britain’s business needs a Government who have their back, not one that drags them down.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
Under the previous Government, life expectancy plateaued, and the number of people living with long-term ill health increased. Was that good for business?
Andrew Griffith
The ability to continue to invest in our public services, and the sterling work done by the predecessor Government on levelling up every part of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] Government Members do not like it, but that work relies fundamentally on private enterprise, which pays the taxes that fund the prosperity and the infrastructure that this country needs. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is merely showing once again his party’s deficient understanding of how a modern economy works—it is markets, not Governments, that drive up prosperity—and how free trade has improved human health.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Does the shadow Secretary of State think that the Conservative-designed and implemented Brexit is good for markets, good for business, and good for growth?
Andrew Griffith
Well, we will talk a little later about stability. If colleagues do not have maiden speeches to make, I will be very happy to talk at great length about the many benefits of Brexit and the important ability for a country to make its own laws and deliver benefits for the economy.
Let me make some progress. The Secretary of State has talked much about infrastructure, and, indeed, that is partly the subject of today’s debate. Although creating infrastructure is a noble goal, important to all the constituents who send us here, words, I am afraid, are cheap, and the actions of his party somewhat undermine his position. His party voted in the other place against measures to allow 100,000 homes to be built, and his Labour Mayor of London failed to build to such an extent that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government now proposes lowering his targets. This Labour Budget has pulled up the housing ladder for so many, by increasing the burden of stamp duty for first-time buyers. Currently, an estimated 80% of first-time buyers pay no stamp duty, but from April 2025, that could fall to only half.
Andrew Griffith
I will happily give way to the hon. Lady, particularly if she can tell me how this Budget will help deliver for first-time buyers.
Florence Eshalomi
Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that this Labour Government will help renters by banning no-fault evictions?
Andrew Griffith
I was party to the debate in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition talked about the unintended consequences of piling burden upon burden on the rental market—in a well-meaning way, I accept. We have only to look north of the border, where similar measures were introduced, to see their devastating effect on the rental markets, and the shocking increase in rents as a result of a Government trying to over-regulate a sector.
Laughably, while the Government talk about investment, in their first 100 days, they cancelled the restoring your railway programme—clearly, with some projects being honourable exceptions—which would have made it easier for constituents to get to work sustainably. They have also cancelled road schemes, including the A303 scheme and—I declare an interest—the A27 Arundel bypass in my constituency. It is not the first time that a Labour Government have cancelled that bypass. The Government talk a great deal about the future of this country, the technology and their modern industrial strategy, but should not new innovative technologies, such as artificial intelligence and supercomputing, be at the heart of that?
Andrew Griffith
I will happily give way to the Secretary of State if he wants to explain why he no longer deems it important to invest in these crucial parts of the economy.
Jonathan Reynolds
Let us reflect on where we are today—the first day of the constructive Opposition. The new Leader of the Conservative party stood at the Dispatch Box two hours ago and called for both tax cuts and massive public spending on defence. How are you going to pay for projects that you promised but never delivered, and that you knew you could never pay for?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The Secretary of State knows better than to say “you”.
Andrew Griffith
We would have got a better answer from ChatGPT. The reality is that the Budget not only increased taxes in the outyears by £40 billion a year but increased borrowing by £140 billion over the course of the plans—yet despite that largesse, there was no room to fulfil the mandate of British researchers and continue to invest in the supercomputer and infrastructure that they need.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
A Business Secretary in the last Government wrote an industrial strategy, but it was quickly binned. Under the Conservatives’ new leadership, what is their position on industrial strategy, because we went without one for many years?
Andrew Griffith
Forgive me if the hon. Member has been here for more than 120 days, but I fully support the sectors, and the industrial strategies that the Government have articulated for them, because the strategies continue on from, and are identical to, those of the previous Government. Not for the first time, we see what I call name-plating from this Government. A British business bank—the UK Infrastructure Bank—is being re-name-plated as a national wealth fund. The modern industrial strategy takes the existing science, technology and innovation framework, our plan for financial services and our creative industries strategy and re-name-plates them under a different banner. That is welcome. There is nothing quite as flattering as plagiarism, and I am delighted that those really important sectors of the economy will benefit from a degree of continuity.
The Budget has been absolutely crushing for business. If the Secretary of State is honest, he will know that from his engagement. The only thing that it has delivered to businesses across the country is more burdens. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the increase in national insurance contributions amounts to a £25 billion tax on business. The reduction of the national insurance threshold by over £4,000 will keep small and medium-sized businesses up at night. Let us not equivocate: the measures in the Budget amount, in the words of the Chancellor herself, to a “jobs tax”. From industry leaders to shop owners, those in the retail, hospitality and leisure industries in particular will think back to what they heard during the election campaign.
Graham Stuart
I know that my hon. Friend follows these things closely. According to the OBR, the £26 billion jobs tax bombshell actually nets only £16 billion because of reduced investment and other funds, and three quarters of the £26 billion falls on workers’ wages. Only this socialist Government could be so incompetent as to reduce wages by more than they will take from a tax that they have introduced. I have not heard that observation yet in the debate, but I share it with my hon. Friend.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. We have heard talk from Labour Members of a circular economy. Well, this is entirely circular. As the OBR observes, the measure does not add to growth, and as my right hon. Friend mentioned, three quarters of the burden will fall on the low-paid. The Labour party has a distinguished record on these matters, and if Labour Members are serious and thoughtful about this, they will interrogate their Front-Benchers in much greater depth, because the measure will result in lower-paid, poorer jobs—and it will be much harder for people to get on the jobs ladder in the first place.
There is an enormous number of unanswered questions. The impact on GPs is uncosted.
Andrew Griffith
Indeed, there will be an impact on charities and the third sector—those who care for us at the most difficult points in life. On Friday, I met representatives from a charity in my constituency that cares for those with dementia. Its income is fixed, its needs are ever present, and as a result of this Labour Budget, it simply does not know how it will balance its books.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Is the reality not that the Labour Government also do not know how they will balance the books? I asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in a written parliamentary question how much the rise in employer national insurance contributions will cost the Department. The Government said that they did not know.
Andrew Griffith
Either the Government do not know but should know, or they do know and should say.
The Budget also included the highest-ever increase in capital gains tax, and a reduction in business property relief. Just as with the family farm tax, that reduction is an attack on the family-owned businesses that dominate our high streets and industrial parks. The incentive to take risk, and to create and grow a family business with the objective of passing it on, will be fundamentally undermined. Some 75% of UK businesses are family run, and in aggregate they employ 50% of all workers in the economy. We are talking about decades of hard work, dedicated to building a legacy, and people creating an insurance policy for their passing. The so-called “loopholes” in inheritance tax that Government Front-Benchers talk about are legitimate tax policies, introduced by a Labour Government in 1976 to ensure that businesses were not broken up and devastated on the death of an owner, to the detriment of the remaining employees, workers, suppliers, customers, the wider economy, and even the Treasury, which would lose future tax take. This measure could be devastating for our communities and our high streets up and down the country.
It is not just Conservative Members who are sounding the alarm, though we may be doing it with a greater degree of passion. The chief executive officer of UKHospitality said that the increase in national insurance will undermine businesses operating at the margins and
“be a brake on growth”.
Family Business UK, which represents family-owned enterprises, has said that the Budget
“removes entirely any incentive for starting or running a family business.”
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the 2022 spring Budget, the Conservative party increased national insurance for employers by 1.25%, and he supported that. Can he explain why he was in favour of it then but opposes it now, even though we have introduced increased employment allowances that counteract the change?
Andrew Griffith
I am pretty sure that at the time, the now Chancellor described the increase as a “jobs tax”, and that is exactly what this is. What we are seeing is not a need to balance the nation’s books on the back of a global supply chain squeeze, higher energy costs due to the war in Ukraine and the aftermath of covid, but a Government coming in with premeditated plans that they did not share with the British people, and setting the biggest-ever tax raid Budget in British history. That is an enormous difference, and business understands it; it can see through this Government.
One of the UK’s leading hospitality entrepreneurs is Luke Johnson, who runs Gail’s, which I believe some of my Liberal Democrat colleagues are rather keen on—they are the party of Gail’s. He said:
“It is heartbreaking that Britain’s proud record of innovation, flexibility and business success is being thrown away thanks to that old knee-jerk Labour instinct of taxing success.”
I agree.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is clear that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the way in which the Budget raises revenue. Does he oppose the £22 billion investment in the NHS, the investment in special educational needs and disabilities education, or the increases in the schools budget?
Andrew Griffith
I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a long and successful career in this House, but he will not have very long to wait; if he is concerned about a lack of investment in the NHS, I ask him to sit down with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and ask exactly what the rate of growth will be for NHS spending and departmental spending in the years ’26-27 and ’27-28. Then perhaps he could come back and tell me what he thinks about that level of spending growth.
The Government talk of stabilising the economy—we have heard a lot about that—but this is not a Budget for stability; it is anything but. Let me educate Labour colleagues. There is nothing stable about lowering the rate of economic growth. All that does is create a more fragile and susceptible economy. There is nothing sustainable about a Government changing the fiscal rules after saying that they would not. Even with the potentially unsustainable levels of departmental spend, there is nothing stable in a Government having a razor-thin level of headroom that the OBR quantifies at only £10 billion—just one third of the level that the Chancellor’s predecessor set—to ensure that they remain within the fiscal rules, which they have just made up, by the way.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew Griffith
I will happily give way to the hon. Lady if she wants to talk about headroom in the fiscal rules, and the lack thereof.
Melanie Ward
The hon. Gentleman is talking about stability, but does he recognise the irony in his party—the party of Liz Truss—lecturing the Government about stability?
Andrew Griffith
The—[Interruption.] I am trying to find something relevant to say to the hon. Lady. There is a—[Interruption.]
Andrew Griffith
I will happily give way in a minute. At least the Budget that the hon. Lady talks about was an attempt to do two things. First, it sought to shield households in this country from going into a cold winter with an increase in energy bills—her Labour colleagues may wish to contemplate what they have done to 8 million pensioners through the reduction of the winter fuel allowance. Secondly, it was a Budget for growth. This Budget, as we have observed—[Interruption.] Well, some people are making interesting comments, but the direction in this Budget is to lower, rather than increase, growth.
Mr Snowden
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the reaction to the Budget, the gilt market is in a far worse position than it was following the mini-Budget? Labour Members might want to do some research into the impact of their own Budget.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will hear the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. The Government are enormously lucky, given the spike in gilt yields over the preceding weeks and subsequent to the Budget, that the previous Government dealt with the aftermath of the financial regulatory failure in respect of liability-driven investment. We dealt with that, and as a result we have a more stable financial system, which has been able, so far, to survive what the Government have done.
In evidence taken by the Treasury Committee yesterday, Richard Hughes explained, and I shall say this slowly, that an increase to interest rates of just 0.3%—one third of 1%—would wipe out all the headroom. That is in the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook, and is no doubt why the OBR gives the Government only a 54% chance of hitting their targets. That is barely better than the odds on a coin toss.
So there we have it. The Government spent months talking up their credentials on enterprise. They looked business owners in the eye and told them that they would have their back and support them, but 120 days later they went back on their promise—a prawn cocktail offensive with a nasty dose of indigestion. They have crushed confidence and destroyed investment. They have checked any incentive for growth. They have left thousands of enterprising strivers wondering when the day will come when the shutters on their shops are not lifted any more. I dare the Secretary of State to stand before the 4.8 million family business owners and tell them that this is a Budget that will work for them. Risk takers and wealth creators deserve a Government who have their back, invest in infrastructure and do not embolden the inefficiencies of the public sector. Be in no doubt: while the Government keep growth, innovation and entrepreneurs in their crosshairs, the Conservatives will always be on the side of business.