Business and the Economy

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House regrets that unemployment is rising and causing misery for young people in particular, that this Government has displayed a negligible understanding of business and that investors and entrepreneurs are being driven overseas; further regrets that over 200,000 businesses have closed since Labour took office, as a result of the Government’s policies to raise employers’ National Insurance contributions, in breach of the Labour Party manifesto commitment, to scrap Business Property Relief, to impose £4.5 billion of additional costs on businesses through the Employment Rights Bill and increases to business rates; and calls on the Government to urgently change course to support jobseekers, small and medium-sized enterprises, family businesses and entrepreneurs who take risks to create wealth and jobs that benefit people across the country.

Allow me to paint a picture. A small business owner navigates the early morning darkness to their high street shop. They twist the keys and lift the shutters. They turn on the lights, the card machine, the heater and the shop music. They open the door in time for their first customer of the day, putting to the back of their mind the question of how to meet the rising costs placed on them by this Government—the taxes they have to pay before they open that door and the unreformed business rates, with many more than doubling. How will they pay the jobs tax on their staff? How will they ever keep their business intact when they seek to pass it to their children after they have gone? Not one single person around the Cabinet table truly understands those pressures, yet this Labour Government have crossed the road to start a fight with Britain’s businesses.

When it comes to business, the Government have broken every one of their promises. Members on the Government Benches looked business owners in the eye at the election and told them that they would be on their side, but it took barely 100 days for this Labour Government to revert to type. At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor slapped a £25 billion jobs tax on business, meaning that employers will have to pay an additional £900 a year for an employee on the median wage, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Only a few weeks later, the Business Secretary tabled the now 300-page, trade union-dictated Employment Rights Bill, drowning employers in red tape. Helen Dickinson, the CEO of the British Retail Consortium, said that businesses are

“left with little choice but to increase prices”—

as we have seen today—“or to reduce investment.” The CEO of UKHospitality, Kate Nicholls, said that these measures

“will simply force businesses to cut jobs, freeze recruitment, cancel planned investment, reduce trading hours and, in the worst-case scenario, close their doors for good.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I will give way.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is so popular. I am interested by how he is starting this debate, because it chimes with what I am hearing in my constituency, where venues such as pubs, restaurants and cafes, which are such a vital part of the effort to regenerate our high streets and local community spaces, are seeing their margins slashed because of the cost of labour and the increase in business rates. Does he agree that Labour’s jobs tax and the ending of business rates relief is putting the regeneration of our town centres and community spaces at risk?

[Andrew Griffith]

How tragic is it that from Gosport to Gloucester and everywhere between, businesses on our high streets are closing? This Government do not understand that. If they do understand, they do not care, and if they care, they have not acted. The message from this Government to anyone willing to put their capital, time and energy on the line by taking risk to create wealth as a business owner is abundantly clear.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Exactly to that point, is it not a shame that for the first time ever since records began in 2012, the number of new businesses registered at Companies House has fallen? The exact risk-taking behaviour that we need to grow the economy is not taking place; is that not a damning indictment of what this Government are doing?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I believe that all of us come to this House to try to do our best and to grow the economy, but any Government faced with that terrible metric about the failure rate and formation rate of businesses would be acting immediately, with haste, and reversing so many of the measures. The choices this Government have made have delivered precisely the outcome my hon. Friend describes.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Pubs are the lifeblood of communities, particularly in rural constituencies such as mine in Broadland and Fakenham. People could perhaps make an argument for individual tax rises, but it is the combination of three in particular that are hitting pubs so badly. It is the increase in the minimum wage—the Government are very good at increasing prices for everyone else, but not themselves—as well as the removal of business rates relief for hospitality and leisure, and the rise in national insurance contributions for employers. The latter point is not so much about the overall percentage rise, but the reduction in the threshold from £9,200 to £5,000, which particularly impacts those who employ part-time staff and those on low wages. It is a triple whammy on pubs. Is that why so many are closing across the country?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point about that triple whammy, and about the cumulative effect of changes and the consequences—potentially unintended—that manifest themselves most acutely in industries such as UK hospitality and retail, which have the great virtue, among many others, of contributing to the character of the places in which we live and giving so many young people their first step on the ladder of opportunity and their first experience of work. Without those businesses, it will be inexorably harder for young people. That is one reason that it is of such great concern that the number of people employed on payrolls under this Government has already fallen by 100,000, with a faster rate of decline in the first quarter of this year. This Government are perfectly positioned to achieve the unbroken track record of every Labour Government in modern history of leaving office with unemployment higher than when they started.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that another factor that will undermine job creation and employment under this Government is their approach to international wealth coming into this country? When other countries, such as the US, are granting golden visas, we are closing the door with these ideologically-driven non-dom reforms, which will not even raise any money. If the Government want to increase job opportunities, they should take the chance at the next Budget to reverse that foolhardy policy.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. He will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, one millionaire is leaving our wonderful country every 45 minutes. That is to say nothing of a generation of young people who are yet to have their opportunity. How tragic it would be to think that young people see greater opportunity—notwithstanding their birthright of being born in this wonderful country—in other parts of the world than is present on their doorstep, in their communities and in the heart of their families.

It has to be said that this Government’s combination of actions are sending a clear and regrettable message to those who seek to create wealth: “Don’t bother. Don’t even try.” This socialist Government do not want people to succeed. There could be no better example of that than the vindictive family business and family farm death tax, which will carve up successful businesses as and when they are handed down to the next generation.

Why do we think this vindictive policy exists? One of the more benign interpretations, to be charitable, is simply the dearth of business experience in the Labour Cabinet. It has to be said, though, that the Cabinet members are world-class in their understanding of, and potential avarice in relation to, trade unions. Perhaps that is why the Secretary of State, who has not deigned to be here with us today, is currently undertaking the most expensive work experience placement in history at taxpayers’ expense at British Steel in Scunthorpe.

It is not just that this Government do not understand the mechanics of business; they do not understand and value the principle of business. Running or investing in a business at its core is a profound act of human courage—the triumph of optimism over inertia, and a mindset of someone solving problems themselves rather than waiting for permission from others. It is about embracing risk knowing that there are no guarantees, no bail-outs and that no one is coming to the rescue. When enterprise succeeds, such people create the wealth that funds our public services.

Every time a Minister dispenses money and largesse in Whitehall, as this Government are doing at record velocity, they can do so only because a founder, an entrepreneur, or a businessman or businesswoman, took that leap. It should be the Government’s job to get out of their way and to help the business builders, not the blockers, but this Labour Government understand none of that. Instead of leaving business to get on and flourish, they have erected a blockade of bureaucracy and taxes that they promised would never come. They have declared war on employers across this land from the ramparts of Westminster.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend will know that business confidence has plummeted since Labour came to power. Does he agree that one of the reasons it has plummeted is the loss of faith in this Government? Businesses were promised that their plans were fully costed and fully funded in advance and there would be no increased business taxes, but within 90 days the Government went back on that. How can business ever trust this Government again?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend, who is himself a very distinguished and successful businessman, knows exactly the importance of that intangible quality of confidence that the Government have your back and you will not wake up in the morning and be hit with a £25 billion jobs tax—on which subject there was not one word, not one syllable, in the Labour party manifesto. We toured the studios jousting with Labour Members and issuing warnings, but we were met with a repeated barrage of denials in respect of their £25 billion jobs tax. [Interruption.] The Ministers are chuntering, and there is probably a fair amount of chuntering to do if they have to explain an inability to balance the public finances along with an attempt to do so by means of a set of vindictive and arithmetically incorrect taxes on business.

We can move on from tax. That is just one of the many barrages faced by businesses that are sapping confidence and producing some of the very worrying statistics that we are seeing. We could, for instance, move on to the “Unemployment Rights Bill”, which is an egregious example of red tape and state intervention and overreach. At this point Labour Members are normally uncharacteristically quiet, because they are aided and abetted to the tune of £31 million by the trade unions.

The Bill shackles the hands of employers in pubs, bars, garden centres, grocery stores, butchers, hairdressers —businesses rooted deep in our communities—with little clarity and no lead-in time. Seasonal work could be made impossible by the Bill. It is certain that compliance costs will rocket. There will be long delays for employment tribunal hearings; in some parts of the country, the wait for a hearing is already approaching 18 months. Even according to the Government’s own estimate, on top of every other measure, there will be a headwind cost for business of an unwanted £5 billion a year.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

You have talked about the risk of seasonal jobs being lost as a consequence of the Employment Rights Bill. In my constituency it is a serious risk, as a number of businesses have told me. Would you say that the Minister should withdraw the Bill, or, at the very least, conduct a proper assessment of its impact?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. May I point out, to prevent any further errors, that the term “you” is not used in the Chamber, because it refers to me, in the Chair? Hopefully no one else will make the same mistake.

[Andrew Griffith]

No one would believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would implement such terrible measures without a proper impact assessment. More significant, however, is the fact that we have heard not just the voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), representing those important seasonal industries, but the voice of employers across the country, who have pointed out that it will no longer be possible for seasonable and flexible work to deliver the economy that we need.

[Dr Evans]

The problem with the Employment Rights Bill is not only its implied cost and the red tape it will introduce, but the fact that it is a poor piece of legislation in the first place. The Government’s own regulatory independent commission has said that eight of the 23 criteria are not fit for purpose. Does my hon. Friend not agree that if the Bill is to proceed, it should be reworked?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. If Labour Members were honest enough to do so, they would admit that the Bill is a rushed piece of legislation. It was introduced because of an arbitrary promise to do so within 100 days, and it was introduced at half its current length, which means that 50% of the words that it now contains—the red tape that our businesses will have to implement and wrestle with for years to come—did not even benefit from scrutiny in this place. Many of the powers in the Bill are not fleshed out or clarified. We will wreak great havoc and uncertainty on business if the Government are determined to proceed. It would be far better for them to shelve the Bill, to listen, to learn and then to come back so that we could use the proper mechanisms of this House to do our jobs for all our constituents to avoid the unintended consequences and the damage that I do not believe anyone would want.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

In that spirit of listening and learning, I have been speaking to businesses in my constituency this week, and the chambers of commerce have signalled that the trade deal is a new start for British business because it is reducing red tape, giving certainty to businesses and allowing them to trade and do well, in my constituency and elsewhere. Do you think they are wrong?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. “Do you think they are wrong?” We have a long afternoon ahead of us—even longer for me in the Chair.

[Andrew Griffith]

One has to celebrate small mercies, and I am delighted by the hon. Gentleman’s conversion to the cause of free trade. Free trade is what has lifted billions of people in the world out of poverty. It has made us the great country that we are today. The business in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency that has formed such a clear view has obviously benefited from considerably more detail than the House, so perhaps he will share its name. We would be very happy to hear about the details of the trade agreement that has been reached.

Perhaps, in having that conversation with his local business, the hon. Gentleman would like to engage in a discussion about its views on the Employment Rights Bill. Despite legion opportunities that I, and others, have given Ministers to name a single business that is in favour of all the measures in the Bill, answer still comes there none.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

May I tell my hon. Friend why I think the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) is wrong? Since the very inception of our negotiations to join what was then the common market—now the European Union—it has attached huge importance to fishing. We have just handed over the enormous leverage of an annual negotiation, and for what? Absolutely nothing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Andrew Griffith, match that passion!

[Andrew Griffith]

I hesitate to stray into the matter of fishing, which I suspect we will debate many times in the future, but I note that those on the other Government Benches next to us tabled an amendment, which has not been selected for debate but which seeks to shackle our small businesses further by having us reverse across a much broader range of topics than the pass that the Government already sold earlier this week, so that we become a taker of rules from Brussels, and our small businesses, entrepreneurs and founders are crushed by the red tape that would originate there.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Fishing is one sector, but there is a clause in the Employment Rights Bill that affects all businesses. At this point I should draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a former entrepreneur who has employed well over 1,000 people in my time. The problem is that if day one employment rights are imposed for any hire, it will be a massive disincentive for businesses to take a chance and take on people who are more vulnerable: the young and the less well qualified. Why would a business take that chance if it risked being hauled up over day one employment rights?

[Andrew Griffith]

Once again, my hon. Friend has demonstrated his deep and real knowledge of business, having himself, in a past life, employed more than 1,000 people. One rather suspects that taking that risk, having that responsibility and shouldering that burden, moral and financial, is greater than the entire aggregate responsibility of Labour Members for hiring anyone. My hon. Friend has made the right point about who will end up on the receiving end of the higher unemployment. It will be the young, looking for their first opportunities, and it will be excluded and vulnerable groups on whom a benign employer would today take a chance—but not if that chance is likely to lead immediately to being at the back of an 18-month-long queue for an employment tribunal hearing.

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

The point made by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) was about day one rights, but that right is to stop unfair dismissal from day one. Is it now the policy of the Conservative party to allow for unfair dismissal between the first and second days? If the shadow Minister is unhappy with that being a right from day one, presumably he is unhappy for people to have that right at all.

[Andrew Griffith]

I am afraid that to make those points is to misconstrue wilfully what is actually in the Bill. We have a very settled and balanced position of employment rights that dates back to before previous Labour Governments as well as the Government in office before the election. It strikes what will always be a difficult balance between offering employees the chance to enter the workforce and the ability of businesses, and of the public sector and others, to hire and to operate in a way that is profitable. It does nobody any favours to think that we can, merely by passing words of statute, change the outcomes in a way that advantages the most vulnerable, who are the youngest employees. The failure to learn from that point will once again lead to exactly the same outcome, which is why every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than where it started. In his response, the Minister may wish to confirm that this time will be different and perhaps lay out exactly why it will be different, but he has a job of work to convince us and, more importantly, every employer in the land that that is the case.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The shadow Minister takes a casual swipe at the business acumen of Ministers, and I wonder whether I can encourage him to develop that point. When I speak to businesses in Angus and Perthshire Glens about the changes that have been instituted since July last year, they are incredulous that anybody with even a passing knowledge of business, enterprise or entrepreneurialism of any nature would put such roadblocks in the way of business and wealth creation. Would he like to expand on that?

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that very perceptive observation. I hate to say this, but I was not making a casual point; it was a considered point. When we think about how this House continues to legislate and tax in a way that reduces economic growth, that does not celebrate a culture of entrepreneurialism and founders, and that is leading to higher employment, with 100,000 fewer people on payroll than there were a year ago, we should all look deep into our souls. What is the endemic failure in Parliament, and of this Government in particular, that is leading so quickly to precisely those outcomes?

It is sad to say that sometimes there is a lack of voice for business. Although one does not want every single sector to be represented in this place, the compensatory mechanism for that involves consultation and diligent impact assessments. In introducing legislation, this Government have been serially criticised for the way that they have casually discarded such measures, and the Treasury maths simply do not add up.

[Dr Evans]

I think it goes wider than that across the top of Government, because Members on both sides of this House are grappling with what to do about people who are long-term unemployed. If we make it more likely that companies will not take a risk on getting someone back into work while increasing unemployment at the same time, we will create a toxic concoction at a time that we are trying to get people back into jobs because we know that that is better for the economy and better for them, their health and their family. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Andrew Griffith]

I do indeed agree. We ought to confront how we have got here—I acknowledge that it has happened over a period of time—with so many young people unable to work, get an education or be in productive training. That is a headwind on the economy, and a moral failure of us all. The question that we should confront ourselves with is this: what are we doing each and every day in this place to give opportunities to 1 million young people and the 9 million others of working age who remain stubbornly on welfare, while improving our public finances and making the maximum use of the wonderful resources, education and skills of the British people, so that we can grow our economy and be the prosperous nation that we once again deserve to be?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend talks about the message of this Government, and just last week I spoke to a first-generation immigrant, who talked about the message for entrepreneurs in this country. She said, “If you can’t hand on more to the next generation through your own hard work, what’s the point?” She is right, isn’t she?

[Andrew Griffith]

She is right, and that is one of the chilling headwinds that anyone who wants to grow the economy, and anyone who serves in the wonderful Department for Business and Trade or our Treasury, should confront. We should be going back to officials and challenging exactly that. How can we achieve a culture vibe shift on growth and entrepreneurship? That is the best contribution that we could all make.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

May I just take my hon. Friend back to what he was saying a moment ago about opportunities for young people? I recently met hair and beauty salons in my constituency. As he knows, they have historically been the most amazing employers of apprentices and have given such wonderful chances to young people. I was worried to hear that the rate at which they are taking on apprentices is dropping off. By 2027, there will be no apprentices left in the sector. It is not just hair and beauty saying that; other sectors in my constituency, such as adult social care and early years education, are saying the same. Is he as worried as I am about the lack of opportunities for our younger generation?

[Andrew Griffith]

Yes, I am enormously worried. We have to understand and make the connection that it is only the private sector that truly creates sustainable jobs. We need people to work in our wonderful public services, but ultimately growth and opportunities come from the expansion of the private sector, which is most encapsulated by female-led businesses, such as those in the hair and beauty sector. They often survive on small margins, deal with lots of different pieces of regulation, and try to keep our high streets and communities alive—as well as performing, I suspect, rather a better service for my hon. Friend than for me and some other colleagues. It is a valuable and vital industry.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

We ought to ram this point home so that the Minister understands. Before he stands up, he has plenty of time to think this through and provide us with a sensible answer, rather than something that is off the cuff, so here is a note of warning. This morning, I attended an event run by one of the national clearing banks, which is putting a huge amount of effort into trying to create, and helping its customers to create, opportunities for young people. The bank has come up with a raft of good ideas, but every single one of them—this point was made very clearly—will hit the roadblock of the Government’s employment legislation. Where is the sense in that? If my hon. Friend does not have the answer, the Minister no doubt will have.

[Andrew Griffith]

Let us hope that the Minister does indeed have an answer. I am somebody who always travels optimistically, and though we have sparred on the important subject of the 300-page, 120,000-word Employment Rights Bill, it is never too late. That Bill is undergoing scrutiny in the other House as we speak, and the Opposition would welcome and support the Government’s shelving it until we have dealt with the cacophony of headwinds that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) talked about earlier, including the changes to the tax system and other changes; the damage that has already been inflicted on the economy; the headwinds on costs that we saw this morning, with inflation 75% higher than the Bank of England’s target rate, which will mean that interest rates are higher for longer; and the failure to reform business rates. There is an opportunity to revisit bringing forward specific proposals on employment to enduringly reduce business rates, if the Government feel a burning desire to do so.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) is quite right: would it not be good if the Minister could use the ample time that we have this afternoon to consult, and to bring forward some sensible answers that will give us all confidence that we are going to see a Government who are properly on the side of business?

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the cumulative effect of all the Government’s measures over the past 12 months—a £25 billion jobs tax, the £5 billion burden of the Employment Rights Bill, the removal of business property relief, which is reducing the incentive to be an entrepreneur—will be to drive unemployment higher?

[Andrew Griffith]

Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend, but it does not actually matter what I or others think, because the reality is that the data does not lie. As of now, we have 100,000 fewer people on payroll than we did 12 months ago, so the data is already telling us about the cumulative chilling effect of those measures.

That is perhaps unintended. We learn today that the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister are at odds, and perhaps the Business Secretary is the third leg on that stool, with each of them bringing forward measures that are enormously damaging to business. They are perhaps not adding up the sums and seeing eye to eye to understand the lived experience of what it is like to be a business on the receiving end of all of those changes, cumulatively and all at the same time.

Many businesses will, from the start of April this year, not only face a payroll increase of around 10%—in an economy without such a level of topline growth, so that hits margins directly—but, because of the failure of the Government to maintain business rates relief at anything like the same level for our retail, hospitality and leisure, have seen their business rates double. Imagine that all hitting a business on 1 April this year.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I was a little startled to be described as sitting on the “other Government Bench”, but perhaps that is the shape of things to come—who knows? I do not have my crystal ball with me.

There has been a predictably negative barrage from the Opposition, which does not surprise me because that is how we work in this place, but thinking of businesses, there are businesses that from this year will get better in my constituency and, indeed, in that of the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan). I am talking about the seed potato industry. We have been crying out to get the best Scottish seed potatoes into European markets, and I therefore do thank the Government. It means a lot to farmers, and I have had very positive comments about it. I am being absolutely fair-minded about that.

[Andrew Griffith]

I am enormously glad, and we should be balanced, that we have found something that goes the other way. I am not sure if one can subsist entirely on a seed potato—it may have been tried historically, and not with enormous success—but I congratulate the hon. Member on the success of his seed potato industry.

To be charitable, we have found a rare example of the Government actually having the back of a business and supporting it, but would it not be wonderful if they could extend that to much larger sectors of the economy, such as financial and professional services, retail and hospitality industries and even our manufacturing industries, as they wrestle under the cosh of uncompetitive energy costs, so that a business in Birmingham, west midlands, will face an industrial energy cost four times higher than that of a competitor in Birmingham, Alabama?

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend has made so many good points that I will of course give way again.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is being enormously generous in giving way, and I am genuinely grateful. Labour parroted during Prime Minister’s questions that there has been growth of 0.7% in the first quarter of this year. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we look into the figures, we see that a chunk of that is production rising by 1.1%? That is actually due to electricity, gas and water prices being raised, and the Government count that as economic growth.

[Andrew Griffith]

Most of us would put higher energy costs into the liability rather than the asset column of our economy. We are debating business, unemployment and the economy, and I hope the Minister will devote an ample proportion of his response to the measures this Government will take to remove the yoke of uncompetitively high energy costs, which is simply crushing so many British manufacturing businesses.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

When it comes to business and the economy, we want to ensure that every region in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit. Northern Ireland is the UK’s smallest region by GDP, but it has higher GDP per head of the population than some regions. It is really important that Northern Ireland has the same advantages and opportunities, and to be fair, I think the Minister is committed to that. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, when it comes to improving business and the economy, my young people in Strangford deserve the same opportunity as those in his constituency or, indeed, in Scotland, Wales or wherever it may be?

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Member is exactly right. When I describe my constituency as “South Downs”, people occasionally assume that it is in Northern Ireland, but all of our young people deserve the best opportunities. We know that the best outcomes for young people are when they can enter the workforce, and that if, when they graduate from school, college or an apprenticeship, those young people cannot immediately find productive work, the scarring impact of that can run through the entirety of their adult life and they never catch up with their peers’ earnings. That is why it is so important that we have a healthy labour market, and a healthy labour market relies on the ability of employers to feel that they can take a chance, give people opportunities and benefit from that.

I want to make some progress, which I suspect may be popular. There are many Members on the Opposition side; sadly, there are disappointingly few on the Government side. Given the paucity of business experience on that side, it is probably appropriate for there to be more listening than talking on the Government Benches.

Let us imagine—and, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know this from your wonderful constituency—that despite all the headwinds this Government have imposed on business, an entrepreneur does well, grows their business into a successful operation and wants to hand it down to the next generation after they are gone. Those people, who have taken risks to create something good for society, are now at a competitive disadvantage as a result of the family business death tax. They will be forced to carve up, slice up, or close up shop forever to meet the demands for business property relief and inheritance tax.

Analysis from CBI Economics for Family Business UK estimates that this measure alone will result in 208,000 job losses and a £2 billion net loss to the Treasury. Again, I hope the Minister will address that directly when he responds. Family Business UK’s chief executive, Neil Davy, says that “far from stimulating economic growth” this policy “will achieve exactly the opposite.” He is right. To illustrate just how ridiculously flawed this policy is, it applies to families here in the United Kingdom, but it does not apply to overseas businesses that operate here, or to those owned by private equity or foreign corporate owners.

Labour has stolen any incentive for success from a generation of home-grown entrepreneurs. We really cannot go on like this. The gulf between those who create wealth and those who govern us has never been larger. Only one Cabinet Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has any real experience of running a business. Trying to find business experience among those on the Labour Benches is like trying to find a tax the Deputy Prime Minister does not think needs to be raised. It is no surprise that, according to the Institute of Directors, over two thirds of businesses are now pessimistic about the future of the economy.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I would argue that it is actually worse than that. A study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has said that business confidence is at the same level it was in the pandemic. In the pandemic, businesses shut up shop and were not sure they would ever open again, and that is the level of business confidence we are dealing with at the moment. A quarter of businesses say they will lay people off, and that is the reality out there. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why the Government need to listen, and change course?

[Andrew Griffith]

Our business community is ravaged; my hon. Friend is exactly right. We are plummeting to depths last reached only when the entire global economy was shut down due to an unknown pathogenic virus. If that is the bar the Government set themselves, I urge them to have a little bit more ambition and confidence in their ability to grow our economy.

No nation can spend its way to growth, or tax its way to success. I fear that we are about to see a case study showing exactly that this does not work. It has been tried before, and it did not work then. We cannot afford the ignorant short-sightedness of this Government. To achieve growth, we need a country in which everybody’s spark of ambition can find ignition. Not everyone needs to run a business, but for those who do, we want a country that values, cherishes and honours its wealth creators; where transforming a side hustle into a main hustle is straightforward; and where His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is transformed from a predator to a partner, and the tax system goes out of its way to reflect the risk of investing, and of running a business. We want our regulators to think carefully before they intervene, and not to pounce on every perceived failure as another reason to try to eliminate risk.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

May I give the House the news that ex-special forces soldiers, including the Minister for Veterans and People, have reached the top of Everest today? Congratulations to them. We also have a mountain to climb to create growth in this country. My hon. Friend mentioned HMRC; does it not reflect the Government? The Government’s attitude to business is that it is a dripping roast to be devoured and taxed to a standstill.

[Andrew Griffith]

So many businesses feel like that, even when HMRC is doing its legitimate job of trying to balance the books and raise money for the public purse. That is because of how it goes about that job, its one-sided nature, and the uncertainty that it inflicts on small businesses, whose biggest asset is their time, and whose greatest opportunity cost is the need to comply with myriad regulations and taxes.

We want a Government with a philosophy of trust in business, and a Government who celebrate personal responsibility and clear the path for innovation. That requires the courage to champion risk-takers and elevate enterprise above sectional interests. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is sad that investors and employers clearly do not have faith in this Government to deliver the contract between the state and those who seek to run a business. Instead of this Government opening up investment for wonderful British businesses around the world, top investors are fleeing the country and taking their wealth, creativity and entrepreneurship elsewhere. What could be sadder?

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

The industries and business groups that are leaving the country quicker than any others are in the oil and gas sector. Investors in oil and gas—in the North sea, Aberdeenshire, and my Gordon and Buchan constituency—are fleeing the country at an astounding rate, taking investment, skills and jobs with them. We are losing a generation of investors, skills and skilled workers. What does the shadow Minister think we should do to keep those skills, that investment and those jobs in the UK?

[Andrew Griffith]

One is tempted to say that we should try to remove this wretched Government as quickly as possible. That, of course, is part of the answer. We need a Government who listen to the points my hon. Friend makes so eloquently on behalf of her constituents and the industry; a Government who understand the reality of the energy situation and the high cost of energy for business, rather than pursuing a failed dogma and ideology that is not being pursued by the rest of the world; and a Government who listen to enterprise and businesses, many of which I have met. We could take that approach from a perspective of trying to grow the economy, in order to reduce energy costs to a competitive level, or because one believes in the climate transition but understands that special skills in dealing with the harsh offshore environment need to be nurtured, rather than squandered in a way that results in people with those skills fleeing elsewhere.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The shadow Minister is making a forensic case against the Government. May I ask him to focus on an issue that he will be familiar with from his prior ministerial experience? We had the banks before the Treasury Committee yesterday. The imminent outcome of the advice guidance boundary review will require the Government to work closely with the regulator to ensure absolute clarity, so that investors across the country can invest in the future of this country through equities, rather than just leaving their investments in cash. That will require action and direction from the Government. It is an issue on which there is probably consensus, but the Government need to step up to the mark.

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank my right hon. Friend and predecessor in the role of City Minister. This is an important point: where we can, we will support the Government in continuing the work, which he and I started, of trying improve the investment outcomes for our economy. We want to increase equity investment to mobilise pension funds and, most importantly, deliver good returns for our investors: the constituents who send us here, and who want the best possible outcome for their pension. It is really important that the Treasury leans into that, and that we have abundant capital markets that are well regulated but not over-regulated. We must create the right culture when it comes to the advice guidance boundary, our tolerance of risk, and our financial literacy and education in our schools. That is a really big point. I hope we continue to work collaboratively and supportively with the Government, along with the excellent Select Committee of which my right hon. Friend is a Member.

None of that helps if wealth creators and global investors have left these shores due to vindictive measures that simply will not raise anything like the money needed. It is perfectly okay to admit when one makes a mistake, and in this case Treasury Ministers have made a mistake. The amount raised will be nothing like the amount expected. The Centre for Economics and Business Research has done important research on that, and found that the cost will be significant. Far from raising money for the Treasury, the country will, I am afraid, lose money.

It is a truism—one that we Conservative Members have to continually teach Labour Members, I regret to say—that we do not make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. Like all socialists, Labour Members are attracted to superficial measures that will ultimately make all of us poorer. Those of us who are left behind will have to pay more, or endure less well-funded public services, as a result of this Government shepherding the golden geese into a pen and then exiling them.

The Deputy Prime Minister was right in her memo, which we saw today: this Government are indeed coming for your job, your business, your pension and your savings. It is all very clear in black and white. Whether Members are Team Rayner or Team Reeves, when it comes to decisions on the economy, it is all bad for business. When the Minister responds, perhaps he will share with us whether he believes that the tax measures advocated by the Deputy Prime Minister, which will have a chilling effect on business, are the right way to proceed.

Whether they are stabbed by employment red tape or shot by higher taxes, the outcome for businesses is the same. The Government duck the difficult questions while the Chancellor fiddles the fiscal rules, making it up as she goes along. Families know that the cost of living is getting higher under Labour. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is so animated that I feel I should keep going, rather than disappoint him. He should listen, rather than chunter.

The Conservative party has a clear vision. It understands business from first principles—[Interruption.] Conservative Members could usefully listen and learn. This could be an exercise in understanding what a proper strategy that is on the side of business looks like. We back the millions of entrepreneurs and businesses who create wealth and jobs across this country. We are unafraid to talk about the need for business, and celebrate private capital, international investors and risk taking.

It was the Conservatives who delivered the single biggest tax cut for business in modern history through the move to full expensing, and the Conservatives who slashed business rates when we introduced retail, hospitality and leisure relief, and during that terrible covid pandemic, it was the Conservatives who provided billions in finance to keep business and the economy going. That is what leadership looks like. That is what a party that is truly on the side of business looks like. I urge Government Members to do a little less talking and a little more listening. They should think of every business owner and employee whom they told, during the election campaign, that the Government would have their back, and ask themselves whether their actions, rather than their words, have proved that to be anything like the case. With employment falling, wealth creators leaving this country at a rate never before seen, businesses closing, investment crashing and inflation rising today, the Conservatives certainly do not believe so. I commend this motion to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

A substantial opening speech there. I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I will, and that is why I am celebrating the fact that average wage rises are happening. If the hon. Member does not want to be in favour of wage rises in Scotland, that says everything about today’s SNP.

We are all used to the Liberal Democrats’ fantasy economics, but the Conservatives used to believe in sound public finances. They used to understand that it is only on that basis that the Bank of England can sustainably cut interest rates, as it has done on four occasions since the general election. The shadow Secretary of State, in his very long speech, claimed that these choices were not pro-business choices. I tell him that these are pro-business choices because it is pro-business to deliver functioning public services. Was it pro-business when the Conservatives left shops up and down the country paying a retail tax, forced to employ their own security guards because the Tories took the police off the beat? Was it pro-business when employers everywhere faced a health tax under the Conservatives because the NHS was not functioning and their staff were off sick? As I said earlier, growth is key. Of course, the shadow Secretary of State is such a champion of the British economy that he predicted there would not be any. Back in December, he claimed with glee that Britain would start 2025 in recession—

[Andrew Griffith]

I didn’t say that.

[Torsten Bell]

I will quote the hon. Member. He said,

“‘could we be in recession’? Yes we could.”

He talked the economy down—he knows exactly what he did—and British business has proved him wrong: no recession and the fastest growth in the G7.

Although the economy is beginning to turn a corner, the Government recognise that there are big challenges ahead. There is no shortcut if we want to get the economy growing again; we have to start investing once again. That is why we have raised public investment by £113 billion over this Parliament. Compare that with the deep cuts planned by the Conservatives. It is why Britain’s pension funds—my day job is as Pensions Minister—are looking to invest more in productive assets and more in the UK. It is also why we are approving infrastructure projects from wind farms to reservoirs that were previously blocked for years. When firms decide to invest, they have to actually be able to build something. That is why Labour is the party of the builders, not the blockers.

Let me turn to trade. The Prime Minister has in quick succession secured three significant trade deals. Every single one has been opposed by the Conservatives—opposing our whisky industry exporting and opposing lower food prices in the shops. It is increasingly clear that they say they support free trade in principle, but there is no actual existing trade deal that they would ever support. They used to be the party of Robert Peel, and now they are just the party of plonkers.

We are under no illusions as to the challenges ahead. We all know, on both sides of the House, the deep cost of living squeeze that has left far too many British families suffering, but we are getting on with the job: stability in the public finances, investing at home, trade agreements abroad, interest rates down and wages up. After a long decade and a half of stagnation, Britain is growing at the fastest rate in the G7.

We have heard a lot from Conservative Members, but not a single word of apology has crossed their lips for the mess they left—no humility for the unprecedented economic damage they inflicted, no apology to businesses or workers, and not even a sign of an alternative plan to drive growth and investment in our economy. The British public learned a very long time ago: when Tories govern, Britain loses.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

In a grave and exceptionally rare step, five major business groups, including the Confederation of British Industry, Make UK, the Institute of Directors, and the Federation of Small Businesses, have all written to condemn the Employment Rights Bill, and their views are shared by UKHospitality and many others. They say that the Bill will damage growth and employment. I know that, and the Minister knows that. This Bill will hurt business. Every business tells me this, and they are telling him exactly the same. Does the Secretary of State think that is why so many of his Ministers are unable to name a single business that supports the Bill and his Government’s jobs tax?

[Gareth Thomas]

I wondered whether the shadow Secretary of State might finally use this set of questions to take the opportunity to apologise for helping to write the Liz Truss Budget, which drove interest rates up fourteen times and did more damage to business than any other single measure in recent times. We had to take difficult decisions to sort out the fiscal inheritance we got, and we recognised that to tackle the cost of living crisis that the Conservatives bequeathed us, we needed to ensure that there is more money in people’s pockets. The Employment Rights Bill will help to do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

The Secretary of State says that all the funding required for the nationalisation of British Steel will come out of existing budgets. We have seen his Department’s budget—we had an estimates day debate in the House not long ago—and there was no unallocated pot. Could he be a little more specific about exactly which budget the money is coming from?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The shadow Secretary of State points to the statement in which I said that in the previous budget there was a £2.5 billion allocation for the green steel fund. Of course, that came in addition to the £500 million for the Port Talbot transformation, which was agreed under the previous Government but was not in the Departmental accounts—as he knows, it was in a heavily oversubscribed Treasury reserve. Yes, the green steel fund will be there to support what we have had to do at Scunthorpe. Again, as I said when Parliament was recalled, the question there was whether we would pay a significant amount of money for the total loss of the business; give a large amount of money to Jingye, but without the certainty that it would be able to deliver on that plan; or step in and take the action that we did, which I am confident was the right option for value for money and for Scunthorpe.

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I think it is widely agreed that the cost of nationalising British Steel could run into the billions. Is he really saying that he plans to raid the previously allocated £2.5 billion green steel fund from the national wealth fund, and how is he doing that given that the national wealth fund is operationally independent? Is not the truth that, sooner or later, this will have to come from his department’s budget at the expense of financial support for the automotive sector, exporters and hard-working trade negotiators?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I recognise the shadow Secretary of State’s concern, but let me reassure him on that point. The options available to the Government were: first, the total collapse of British Steel, which would have had an incredible cost to the Exchequer of well over £1 billion; secondly, the request from Jingye for £1.2 billion, which the Leader of the Opposition said she did or did not agree to in some way with it going to Teesside, at very significant cost; or thirdly, as we have done so far, the provision of working capital to British Steel in order to pay wages and continue the purchase of raw materials and the operation of the business. Of course, those costs will be incurred by the company, because they will enable it to produce and sell steel. I will write to him with the details if he is not confident in the decision that we have made, but it was the right decision not just for the steel industry but for the taxpayer.

British Steel

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and I join her in thanking the Scunthorpe workers for their efforts over the last few weeks.

We are here once again because the Government had no plan—they failed to prepare, they bungled negotiations, and they took too long to listen to the warnings. What do we have to show for it? We have this botched nationalisation and a potential bill for the taxpayer stretching into the billions. I say billions, but it remains entirely unclear how much this bungled 11th-hour decision will cost, while the assets still belong to China. I hope that Members across the House will agree that this is a complete mockery of transparency and accountability, and I hope that the relevant Select Committees will take it upon themselves to conduct their own inquiries. Instead of a statement from the Treasury today, the Chancellor is running to the International Monetary Fund in Washington to explain how she broke the UK economy. Steel nationalisation, the IMF downgrading growth forecasts, trade union summits in No.10—it is all sounding a bit 1970s.

The simple problem is that we do not know the answers to any of these questions because the Government have failed to publish an impact assessment. Will the Minister confirm to the House when they plan to do so? Has anyone in government asked the Office for National Statistics whether British Steel will now be classified as a publicly owned entity? Has the ministerial team discussed the impact of the takeover with the Chancellor on her already evaporated fiscal headroom? To date, how much has the Department spent, or how much has it committed to underwrite—that is a straightforward question that deserves an answer? Given that her Department had no budget for revenue support of steel, has the Minister been able to secure additional funds from the Treasury, so that other sectors or support for British exporters do not pay the price?

We have seen no further detail of the Government’s proposed steel strategy, or any confirmation of longer-term plans to protect British steelmaking. Labour Members refused to back a coking coalmine to produce some of the raw materials that blast furnaces rely on. Instead, they wait for shipments to arrive from halfway around the world. Most importantly, the Government have not set out how they intend to reduce the enormous burden of sky-high energy costs. Instead, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero seems dead set on delusional policies that drive energy prices in this country even higher. We cannot make steel sustainably when we have the highest energy prices in Europe. Prices for industrial energy in Birmingham in this country are four times higher than those in Birmingham Alabama. We cannot make steel if we do not have coal.

As Nissan’s Alan Johnson said today, the “simple fact” is that the UK is

“too expensive… Once you’ve paid your electricity, gas, NICs we are too expensive—any industrial strategy that does not tackle that is a waste of time.”

Well, we are here once again. There is no steel strategy, no industrial strategy, no export strategy and no energy strategy. Perhaps when she replies the Minister can share a single strategy that this Government actually possess.

[Sarah Jones]

It is getting harder and harder to understand quite what the Opposition’s policy is on steel. It is all over the place. On the one hand, they ask us questions about costs. They say they had negotiated a modernisation plan with British Steel, but they will not tell us how much money they were willing to throw at that plan. Their proposal, apparently, was to build on two sites. If Jingye was asking us for £1.2 billion to build on one site, how much taxpayers’ money were the Government putting on the table to fund two? We need answers to those questions.

On nationalisation, last week the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, who was, as we know, Financial Secretary to the Treasury when Liz Truss crashed the economy, said that he backed full nationalisation of British Steel. On the other hand, this morning the Leader of the Opposition said on Radio 4 that nationalisation should be the “last resort.” It seems a bit muddled. Finally, the hon. Member asked questions about the cost of energy pricing, forgetting of course that industrial energy prices doubled under the Tories. UK Steel, the trade body for the steel industry, is clear and has said that it is

“the UK’s reliance on natural gas power generation”

that leaves us with higher prices than our international allies. It is not too much clean energy, but too little.

The hon. Member asked a reasonable question about the costs. I hope he will understand that matters at the moment are sensitive and commercially confidential, and I hope he will be assured that we will publish accounts in due course. We are securing materials and reviewing things such as health and safety, and other critical roles. Regular meetings are happening between the Departments and British Steel, as he would expect, and of course we will publish those details in due course. He asked about the coalmine. British Steel has told us directly that it could not use that coal because of the sulphur content. We also need coke ovens to turn coal into coke, and the coke ovens at British Steel were closed on his watch several years ago. The reality is that the Tories failed the British Steel sector, and this Labour Government are securing it.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for taking the time to brief me last night ahead of today’s sitting, and for advance sight of his speech.

To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail. What a way to proceed: recalling Parliament for only the sixth occasion since the end of the second world war to debate a Bill published only 90 minutes ago. This would be conduct unbecoming of a parish council. Our country, our economy and this Parliament all deserve better. That is why the amendment in my name would at least put a sunset on the Bill, and I hope the Government will accept it.

Today is not a failure by the steelworkers of Scunthorpe and elsewhere, their families or the community. They have toiled for generations to ensure that we have the primary steel we need for our structures, our safety and our security. This is a failure on the Government’s watch. Let us be crystal clear what today means: we are entering a tunnel with only one exit. This is a botched nationalisation plan, revealing that the Government have no plan.

In government, we acted to secure Port Talbot and we were negotiating a plan, including British Steel’s preferred option of an electric arc furnace on Teesside, which would have limited job losses and kept Scunthorpe running in transition. Once again, when Labour negotiates, Britain loses—the Chagos islands, US tariffs, the train drivers and now this latest crisis. A bad toolmaker blames his tools, but this time the Government have only themselves to blame.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, in the years between 2010 and 2023, steel production in this country fell by 50% —40% to 50%—and does that not underline the lack of strategy under the previous Government?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will talk about the difficulties facing steel around the world, but let us just be clear what is happening today: the British people must not have lost their winter fuel allowance and their disability benefits in order that China can walk away from its liabilities, leaving British taxpayers to pick up the bills.

Steel needs energy, and energy needs steel. No one denies that steelmaking has been difficult for some time, but Scunthorpe is the victim of a dishonesty that pretends it is better for the environment to ship coke halfway around the planet than from down the road, and of an energy policy that has driven costs higher than in any competing nation. No one is more responsible for this than the Energy Secretary and the Prime Minister who appointed him.

[Graham Stuart]

Will my hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.]

[Graham Stuart]

I assume that applies after the warning, Mr Speaker.

We have a Government who, I believe, are shipping coking coal just off the Lincolnshire coast today from Japan, when it was perfectly possible to have the world’s greenest production of coking coal in Cumbria, with thousands of jobs. Is it not a disgrace that this Government turned their back on jobs in Cumbria and, indeed, in the North sea because they put ideology ahead of practicality and even ahead of the environment?

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is sad to say that Scunthorpe is the victim of exactly that policy: putting ideology before British interests.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew Griffith]

I will make some progress.

Millions of other businesses are also struggling with their energy bills, which is why the Chancellor’s tax choices have been so devastating. Steel may be the first domino to topple, but glass, chemicals, cars and concrete are other industries at risk. Does the Prime Minister envisage a whole series of Saturday sittings, or will he change course today and cut energy costs now, and not in 10 years’ time when it is too late?

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We are hearing about the previous Government’s efforts to save British Steel, and we have heard a somewhat confusing account of the deal that the now Leader of the Opposition negotiated. If such a deal existed, can we see a record of it?

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made it extremely clear that the deal was being negotiated, and the point about it being negotiated is that it would have been concluded after the election.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew Griffith]

I will make some progress.

It did not need to be this way. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) has been warning of a growing threat since last September. The Mayor of Tees Valley has been asking the Government to present their plan for steel for months. Rob Waltham, the leader of North Lincolnshire council, has done all he can to support steelmaking in Scunthorpe. And, on 4 April, Ed Conway of Sky News showed the world that we were just days away from the risk of the furnaces shutting down. But the Government did not listen and they did not act.

It has been almost 10 days since Parliament last debated substantive Government business. Rather than this rushed, one minute to midnight Bill, we could have used that time for proper debate, proper process and proper scrutiny. This is indefensible incompetence. Despite years to prepare, it is clear that the Government came into office with no plan. There is no steel strategy, there is no industrial strategy, there is no export strategy, and now we have this botched nationalisation.

The Secretary of State says that his preference is to find a commercial partner, but let us be serious. Do the Government think that is likely, after attacking business with a £25 billion jobs tax and his Bill to create the most hostile environment for employers since the 1970s? On the Chancellor’s watch, in case she has not noticed, all the flow is of investors leaving this country.

[Dawn Butler]

I am still a little confused about the deal negotiated by the last Government. As the Leader of the Opposition did not answer, could the hon. Gentleman please clarify the situation for the House?

[Andrew Griffith]

I am not surprised that the hon. Lady is a little confused; as I said, the Government have failed to lay out their plan and to afford this House the opportunity to debate it. Everything that we have heard this morning says that the Government have not really thought this through. Steelmaking is complex, intense and highly operational. Iron ore has to reach thousands of degrees to become molten iron. It is a dangerous process that poses a serious risk to health. In Birmingham, Labour struggle to collect the bins—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

Sit down. From midnight, the Chancellor will be standing behind the payroll, settling every bill with every supplier, even if they are in arrears. If these decisions no longer sit with the plant owner, where does the buck stop? Old Admiralty Building? The Treasury? No. 10? How can other steel providers have any confidence in the impartiality of the Government’s steel strategy if the umpire is now on the pitch? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the Bill on public finances? There is no impact assessment.

The Government have been talking to British Steel for nine months. They have put at least £500 million of taxpayers’ money on the table. Surely by now, the Business Secretary and his officials have a comprehensive understanding of the cost of the actions that he is asking us to vote for. What disrespect it shows to this House for the Government to come along today, having recalled Parliament, after nine months of failing to land a deal, and ask us for a blank cheque. That is no way to run a corner shop, let alone the country. Has anyone in Government asked the Office for National Statistics—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew Griffith]

If they sit down, they might learn something.

[Mr Speaker]

You will sit down, actually. It is the hon. Gentleman’s choice whether he gives way, so Members should stop hanging around.

[Andrew Griffith]

I will take an intervention if someone wants to answer this question: has anyone in Government asked the ONS whether, as a result of the powers that are being taken in this Bill, from today British Steel will be classified as publicly owned, whether it has been formally nationalised or not? No answers.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[Andrew Griffith]

That is a bit slow. [Interruption.] Go on then.

[Bill Esterson]

That is a relevant question, given that the hon. Gentleman was Boris Johnson’s business adviser when the Jingye deal was being negotiated. What advice did he give Boris Johnson about whether to accept that deal?

[Andrew Griffith]

Disappointingly, there was no answer to my important question about the ONS and whether this asset will sit on the Government’s balance sheet. Perhaps when the Minister winds up, he will provide an answer to that important question that affects the nation’s finances.

The markets know, the world knows and we know that the Chancellor’s headroom was inadequate from the very moment that she sat down after her last emergency Budget. Only this week, the Bank of England took the unprecedented step of cancelling the planned sale of Government bonds. Today’s botched nationalisation will further unsettle international markets. When will the Chancellor be presenting her next emergency Budget, and what are her plans to update the markets?

There we are: a disrespect of this House; the Government treating Parliament with disdain; nine months of dither and delay; and a botched nationalisation of steelmaking, with the British taxpayer on the hook. It is crystal clear that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. This is not a serious Government. It is a Government shaped by events, not in control of them. It is government by sulky teenager—not sharing their plans, not answering the question, and when it goes wrong, it is everyone’s fault but theirs.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

UK-US Trade and Tariffs

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Businesses, workers and their families woke up this morning with greater fear and more uncertainty about their future. Tariffs make us all poorer by pushing up costs, suppressing demand and making the pound in our pocket buy less of the things we need. It is free trade to which we owe our past prosperity, and free trade that has lifted billions out of poverty since the second world war.

This is a moment for calm words and cool heads, and we will support the Government when they do sensible things to reverse the impacts on our already fragile economy. I am glad they have recommitted to reaching a deal with our closest ally and largest single country trading partner. However, this is also a moment for honesty and telling the truth. The Government, sadly, got no special favours from the White House last night. The Secretary of State refers to vindication. This is no vindication at all. We are in precisely the same band as the Congo, Costa Rica, Kosovo and Christmas Island. In fact, I can count more than 125 countries and territories that have the same US tariff levels as we now do—not that special.

Our automotive manufacturers face unchanged tariffs of 25% on around £8 billion-worth of cars and auto parts exports. Steel and aluminium exports remain at 25% and, on a volume-weighted basis, our exports face an average tariff of closer to 13%.

Above all, last night was a vindication of those who were pilloried and abused for wanting our country to have the freedom to decide our own trade policy. If Labour and the Liberal Democrats had their way, we would still be in the EU. As the Prime Minister acknowledged this morning, thousands of British jobs have been saved today as the result. I hope that he and his colleagues had the decency to regret the 48 times that they voted to stay in Europe, and to thank us for getting Brexit done.

Last week, the OBR warned that these tariffs could knock up to 1% off GDP. We are already in a per capita recession and markets are falling this morning. It is businesses that create jobs and grow our economy, yet, at every turn, the Government have piled on headwinds when they need our support. They put a tax on jobs, more than doubled business rates for many, introduced the family business death tax and are barrelling ahead with flawed recycling charges. No wonder business confidence remains at rock bottom.

To help British exporters survive, the Government must urgently tackle our sky-high energy costs. A business in Birmingham, west midlands, faces energy costs that are four times those of its competitors in Birmingham, Alabama in the US. That dwarfs the impact of tariffs and is no basis on which to compete.

The Secretary of State was responsible for the Employment Rights Bill, which will hit businesses so hard that the OBR has not even begun to assess how much it will hurt the economy. Now is the time, today is the day for the Secretary of State to walk back to his Department and, in the national interest, instruct his officials to shelve the Employment Rights Bill. He should put ideology aside, put the unions on hold and put the Government on the side of British business. The cost of failure is too high, the burdens on business are too great and time is too precious, the Secretary of State must act and act fast.

Let me conclude with some questions for the Secretary of State on behalf of all our constituents. Will he publish an urgent assessment of the impact of today’s tariffs on the UK economy so that the markets can see whether the Chancellor’s emergency Budget sums still add up, or whether she will be back for more taxes? When will he give the car makers the clarity they need on the ZEV—zero emission vehicle—mandate? Will he undertake to keep Parliament informed and to publish the UK’s broader objectives—not its negotiating strategy, but the broader objectives—in these trade negotiations with the UK, precisely as the previous Government did in March 2020? Will he assure us that any deal will back British farmers and food producers and uphold our high environmental protection and animal welfare standards, which we have enhanced and upheld in the agreements that we have reached since leaving the EU?

Will the Secretary of State now surge additional resources for exporters, reallocating resources across Government to fund a new version of the UK trade show programme and enlarge the GREAT campaign? What consideration are the Government giving to the special situation of Northern Ireland? Will he guarantee that all claims under the duty reimbursement scheme for Northern Ireland will be paid promptly and the Government will commit additional resources when required? Can he reassure us that, in the event the UK did see a major trade distortion in Northern Ireland, the Government would be prepared, if necessary, to trigger article 16 of the Windsor framework? Will he reassure the House that any concessions to UK tech giants on the digital services tax will not simply shift the burden to the United Kingdom’s small businesses?

The Conservatives are on the side of business and Britain. We understand the gravity of the situation, and we will support the Government where they act in the national interest. I hope that they will take this moment seriously, get back around the table with their US counter- parts and involve the House in their deliberations.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his response and his tone in responding. I recognise his commitment to free trade and the case he has made for it. I believe it is something we broadly share. He asks for honesty—that is always good in Parliament—but he is a little bit flippant about the position we find ourselves in today. He mentions a series of countries—Christmas Island, Kosovo—that do not have the kind of complex trading relationship that we have with the United States.

The shadow Secretary of State can see from my tone, presentation and words that I am disappointed that we are in this position, but I look at the EU, facing a tariff of 20%; at Japan with 24%; at India with 26%; and at Canada and Mexico with 25% tariffs already in place. Yes, we are in a more favourable position compared with those key friends and allies, but we must go further, especially in relation to the tariffs on the automotive sector, which is a particular concern for me.

The shadow Secretary of State again brings up Brexit, which was perhaps not the Conservative party’s finest hour in preparing the state for large trade shocks, but let us pass over that. As the President of the Board of Trade, I am of the view that it is good that we can set our own trade policy, but I say to him and to all colleagues: is it not time that we try to unite the country for the future, rather than keep on harking back to the past? Is that not how we will find our way through this? Half the country voted one way, and half voted the other way, but let us build together and look to the future. It is the right way forward. My next point is very important: it is false to see this as a choice between working with the US and working with the EU. We can work in a way that is consistent with both, and we should all be committed to that.

The shadow Secretary of State also asked about the implications for the United Kingdom. Broadly, he asked me to reverse a series of policy choices made in the last 14 years; I will go through all of those. In relation to the spring statement, the Chancellor had already rebuilt the headroom substantially higher, due to the global turbulence, than that bequeathed her by the Conservative party.

On the Conservatives’ spending plans, they left no business rates relief whatever: it was a one-year relief, rolled over, that never had any longevity. I have not yet received any credible proposals on how their spending plans would be paid for, but I am always available to receive those in writing.

The shadow Secretary of State asks for reassurance, which we are always happy to provide on domestic policy changes. On things like the ZEV mandate for the automative sector, we are more pragmatic than the Conservative party was when in office. As he knows, the Department for Transport leads on that policy, but our response to the consultation on potential changes will be published soon. As colleagues would expect, I will not comment on the details of any negotiations with the US.

In our manifesto, we committed to the UK’s sanitary, phytosanitary and food safety standards system. Of course the Government will adhere to that. The shadow Secretary of State also knows that we are imminently preparing to publish our trade strategy, which covers a lot of these issues, particularly around support for exporters that we want to proceed with.

Northern Ireland is an incredibly important issue for all colleagues. The potential for a differential response from the European Union could lead to a difficult situation in Northern Ireland. As the Secretary of State highlights, the key policy is the duty reimbursement scheme, because goods entering Northern Ireland from the US that will not go into the wider single market are subject to the reimbursement programme. We must make sure that that works well. I recognise the points that he has made on it, and I will continue to update the House and all colleagues on our work in this area. I recognise how important and relevant it is to all our constituents, so we will endeavour to keep all colleagues updated on progress.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] because it will provide for regulatory alignment with the European Union, and it has been condemned three times by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee as a skeleton Bill which provides, without justification, inappropriately wide powers for Ministers to re-write the regulatory regimes for product safety and the weights and measures of goods by regulations.”

Too often when the public think of Parliament, they think of out-of-touch power and bad laws. The Bill is the archetype of everything that is wrong with Westminster. There should be an unwritten rule in this postcode: never trust a Bill with a convoluted name. This Bill is no exception.

Although it professes to simplify our regulatory framework, the reality is that this is an EU Trojan horse of a Bill, which will sabotage our Brexit freedoms, undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom, disrespect Parliament, befuddle British business with uncertainty and take us back to being a Brussels rule-taker—all from a party that voted 48 times to overturn the will of the British people.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will not, but before I get into further—[Interruption.] I will say something nice about the right hon. Gentleman in a minute.

Before I get into detail, let me welcome the Government’s U-turn on their plan to scrap the great British pint. Let us hope that that is the first of many. When I raised that on 26 February, Labour Members described it as “a conspiracy theory”. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said it was “scaremongering”, and the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), said that an amendment was no more needed than a

“law to say that the sun must rise in the morning.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 812.]

The truth is that the Government were caught red-handed trying to ditch our British pint by this back-door Bill. Had the Opposition not fought back, the power to crush the British pint would have rested on the whim of a Minister’s pen. Welcome though that U-turn is, let us not ignore the fact that the Labour Government wanted to give themselves the power in the first place.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

rose—

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Andrew Griffith]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner).

[Laurence Turner]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and I hope he will also give way to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench. Will he tell the House what possible motive he thinks a Labour Government would have for scrapping the pint?

[Andrew Griffith]

The Labour motive is all too plain to see. This is a Labour party that voted 48 times to reject the will of the British people, led by the Prime Minister, who sought a second referendum to overturn that will. I accept that the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield was not in the House at the time, but he might want to spend some time with his colleagues in the Tea Room and hear precisely what happened.

[Adam Thompson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

No, I will make some progress.

The anti-pub, anti-hospitality agenda goes far beyond this Bill. The jobs tax, the threshold change, the attack on seasonal and flexible working, the more than doubling of business rates, the war on pub banter and the garden smoking ban are all from this Government. Our hospitality industry—the Secretary of State is smirking—deserves infinitely better than this from this Government.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

I am happy to give way if the right hon. Gentleman talks about what he will do to repeal the Employment Rights Bill.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The hon. Member was a senior member of the previous Government and played a well-known role in the mini Budget, as well as a number of other things that that Government did. Will he confirm that they were planning exactly the same piece of legislation because of an absence in the statute book?

[Andrew Griffith]

Once again, the Secretary of State has failed to engage on the key issue, which is that British businesses—[Interruption.] It is not funny. British businesses are bleeding out, business confidence is at a record low, unemployment is rising, and all the Government have to talk about is the past, not what they are currently delivering.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend was asked just now whether the previous Government were likely to have introduced this legislation. May I set the record straight? Had we done so, the Secretary of State would have voted against it.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend has great wisdom on these matters.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

Let me move on. The biggest flaw of many in this Bill is that, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) have both identified, it hands over too much power with too little accountability. There is

“a real need to consider the balance between primary and secondary legislation, which in recent years has weighed too heavily in favour of delegated powers…excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation—”

such as this Bill—

“upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive.”

Those are not my words, but those of the Attorney General. They are taken from a speech that he made in October, while in government, about the importance of restoring parliamentary sovereignty. No one who considered that speech could fail to agree.

The Lords’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has slammed the Bill not once, not twice, but three times, including after the Government’s changes were made. To put this into context, the wide powers contained in this 15-page Bill will allow Ministers unilaterally to amend product safety regulation, impose obligations on online marketplaces, meddle with standards for weights and measures or entirely align British regulatory standards with the European Union, posing a threat to the integrity of the UK internal market. It is 15 pages of the most egregious Whitehall overreach.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another hammer blow to British businesses? We have had the Labour Government introducing £25 billion of tax with the employers’ national insurance contribution, £5 billion of costs with workers’ rights and a never-ending increase in energy bills as they drive forward on their net zero fantasy. Now they will be able to change regulation more or less on a whim, whenever they feel like it, destroying certainty and confidence for British businesses.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend makes a serious and important point. I take the Secretary of State in good faith when he says that he desires for his Government to grow the economy—every Government should, and I believe that this Government should as well—but he must recognise that every single action he takes will take us further away from that goal by piling on the red tape and increasing the level of tax. The regulatory jeopardy in this Bill will do the same, by simply making it impossible to know what product regulations will look like. How can any business plan for the future when the powers offered up by the Bill introduce such a prospect of unpredictable regulatory change?

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that someone sitting at home watching this will be worried by the argument that it is more important to stick to some anti-EU dogma than it is to protect their children from dangerous products, or to keep dangerous electric bikes off the market and regulate for their safety?

[Andrew Griffith]

With the very best will in the world, I think the hon. Lady can do a great deal better than that. As hon. Members have said, this House can legislate. If there are dangerous products, bring those use cases here, and I believe that across the House we will legislate rapidly to protect our constituents’ safety. However, our constituents did not send us here to pass a 15-page Bill full of skeleton powers to give the Secretary of State an unlimited ability to regulate without having to consult this place.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The challenge for many of us who were here during the previous Parliament, when the hon. Member was in office and had the power to diverge, is that we watched what happened and we saw the cost to British business. That is why the previous Government decided in the end to abandon the British charter mark, is it not? Would he care to tell the House how much proceeding with his plans would have cost British business? It was £1.6 billion, in case he does not know. British businesses need to hear that we get it. They do not want more paperwork; they want less.

[Andrew Griffith]

I am genuinely intrigued, and I shall sit here and listen to the hon. Lady’s speech later on. Does she want divergence? Does she want us to use our Brexit freedoms, or does she seek to go back to being a rule taker and converge?

We have not heard a compelling argument from the Secretary of State today as to why these powers should be granted. It is right that we in this House adopt the precautionary principle, and if the Secretary of State, or the Minister in winding up, can give us some more compelling use cases, I am sure we would consider that.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This is all very important. There has been some merriment about the pint, but in the novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” by George Orwell, the hero goes into a pub, and somebody there laments the fact that the despotic regime has just abolished the pint and forced people to drink litres. The road to serfdom is paved by many steps such as this. By the way, when I was Minister for consumer affairs many years ago, we regularly banned things. We did not need this Bill.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend makes the perfect point that this is precisely what the road to serfdom looks like, whether it is serfdom to an individual Minister at a moment in time or serfdom to an unelected Brussels bureaucratic elite. Why would we give up the powers of this House, the reason why we are sent here, and the ability to hold the Government to account?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Member described the Bill as a Trojan horse—it is more like a Trojan donkey. Does he agree that clause 2(7) is a particular problem, because it appears to take European Union regulations as the baseline for determining safety? To many of us, the assumption that European Union regulations should be the starting point for any safety regulations that we might want to make seems somewhat bizarre.

[Andrew Griffith]

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right, and we can contrast the number of references to the European Union throughout the Bill with, for example, our biggest single country trading partner—the United States.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I want to directly answer the point made by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and provide clarification that I have just sought. Clause 2(7)(a) is not about alignment; it is about recognition. We already recognise certain EU product requirements on a mutual recognition basis, and where it is of benefit to do so, that is what the clause allows. Rather than take European standards as the basis for our own and align with them, it enables that where it is recognised that we have the interest. I can write to him in detail if he wishes.

[Andrew Griffith]

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), I thank the Secretary of State for intervening. It is important that we legislate with full understanding of what the law says, but the point still stands on the overweighting of references to EU standards versus comparable standards from the United States and Commonwealth friends of this great nation.

[Sir John Hayes]

On that note, the point is the one I made to the Secretary of State: where, as the impact assessment suggests, regulations are moving at pace—the Secretary of State repeated that—we will default to a European set of standards. That is the problem, and that is certainly implied in the Bill’s impact assessment. I sought the Secretary of State’s assurance that that will not happen. If it does not happen, will there be no rules or regulations? How will that work in practice?

[Andrew Griffith]

We are having the proper debate through these interventions that perhaps we should have had when the Secretary of State was introducing the Bill. That illustrates the point about putting a vast amount of ambiguity—even if it is well intentioned—into the law and how things will operate, and for a reason of which we know not. If there are instances of, for example, e-scooters catching fire in people’s halls, this House has the ability to legislate, and legislate fast where necessary, against those particular harms at that particular moment in time. My right hon. Friend, with his many years of experience in this House, understands that point, and I think that was what he was saying.

[Sammy Wilson]

Although Opposition Members will perhaps deliberately choose to believe that the words and assurances given are ambiguous, does the hon. Member accept that even Government Members in the House of Lords believe there is an ambiguity that needs to be cleared up? One comment was:

“The question of dynamic alignment with the EU remains unanswered yet ever more topical.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 712.]

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Member makes exactly the right point. This is a blank cheque Bill and a Trojan horse Bill. It is simply not clear under this Secretary of State, or any Secretary of State in the future once these powers have been ceded by this place, how they will be implemented. There is a real asymmetry in the constant litany of references to the European Union—a valued trading partners of ours, but only one valued trading partner of ours, as I hope the Secretary of State is about to reveal over the coming days. Tomorrow we understand that tariffs will be imposed by the United States on British exporters. If that is the case, that would be the worst failure of trade policy for a generation. It is businesses, jobs and our economy that will all pay the price. The Chancellor’s emergency Budget will not have lasted a single week because she made no provision for the imposition of tariffs—if that is indeed what is to come.

It is frankly outrageous that the Government have failed to make a statement about where we are, despite the Prime Minister’s official spokesman briefing the Lobby, and the Business and Trade Secretary himself finding time this morning to conduct a round of media interviews. If the Secretary of State would like to comment on the progress of US talks, I will happily give way.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

This is a little off-topic for a Second Reading, but the hon. Gentleman could have just listened to the “Today” programme this morning. He would have heard me articulate those concerns. We are engaged with our US counterparts, more so than any other country, in those negotiations. He will know that I will not share the content or detail of those talks. The policy originates with the President of the United States and we are responding to and engaging with it. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it comes from the mandate and the agenda of the US Administration.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State that we are debating the Second Reading of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, and not necessarily tariffs.

[Andrew Griffith]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am nearing a conclusion in any case. However, I do think that the issue of product safety—the rules and regulations that govern our economy, as the Secretary of State himself said—is intrinsically linked with trade, mutual recognition and growing the economy by removing trade frictions and barriers rather than erecting them and subjecting businesses to the tyranny of simply not understanding the corpus of rules and regulations.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he, like me, hope that the Liberal Democrats, despite their hobby-horse love of the EU, do not allow the EU flavouring of the Bill to blind them to the frankly illiberal Executive-enhancing, legislature-diminishing aspect of the Bill? If they genuinely aspire to being His Majesty’s Opposition, they will join us this evening in voting against Second Reading.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope, as the Secretary of State slightly alluded to in his remarks about the ability of a country to make its own rules and regulations, that we will soon be back in the House with a Government statement at which we can celebrate the mother of all Brexit benefits: securing the ability to conduct our own trade. I look forward to hearing from the Liberal Democrats exactly how much they welcome that ability on behalf of their constituents.

[Christine Jardine]

Although I cannot speak immediately for all Liberal Democrats, it puzzles us that the official Opposition do not seem to recognise that if they had legislated properly when we left the European Union, this legislation would not be necessary. Do they not accept any responsibility for where we are today?

[Andrew Griffith]

We will not accept any lessons from the Liberal Democrats about what it takes to Brexit successfully and go back to being an independent nation, but if that is what the hon. Lady will speak about, I look forward to hearing it.

To conclude, the Bill is flawed in so many ways. With the best will in the world, Ministers should not be proposing it, particularly given their failure so far to protect us from US tariffs. It is a bad Bill from a Government who are already failing. It is a travesty for anyone who cares about respect for parliamentary democracy and the role of this House versus Ministers. It is, as I said, a Trojan horse Bill that will sabotage our Brexit freedoms and take us back to being an EU rule taker, which the British people had long put behind us. I urge the House to back our reasoned amendment and end this terrible Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

How have we got to this point? After 35 weeks as Trade Secretary, 18 weeks since the US election, and an entire month since steel and aluminium tariffs were first announced, the Secretary of State is only now going to sit down with the Secretary of Commerce of our closest ally. While he has been correcting his CV, steelworkers and businesses are hurting today. This is a colossal failure of trade policy on his watch. Why has it taken so long, and when can we expect an agreement?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman may have not seen the news recently, but the UK, led by our Prime Minister, has had the best engagement of any country with the new US Administration. Is it not good to see again a British Prime Minister who is respected on the world stage and delivering for Britain? We have had tremendous engagement with the new US Administration, and I am looking forward to meeting them in person next week.

[Andrew Griffith]

Once again, no answers come there forth. Over 1 million jobs in this country depend on trade with the United States, including thousands of jobs in our steel industry. The Secretary of State does not know when he is going to get a deal. Will he publish his red lines for that deal, his objectives and what he hopes to achieve from meetings next week?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

On steel and aluminium tariffs, the US Administration’s position is that there are no exemptions for anybody—that is across the board. I think they recognise the very strong case that we have, but that is their position.

No, I will not publish my negotiating red lines before a negotiation. Frankly, that is the worst advice I have ever heard in the House of Commons. The Conservative party fell out with the EU, would not deal with China and could not do a deal with India. It fell out with the United Arab Emirates and could not do a deal with the Gulf. It got nothing out of the US. It did deals with Australia and New Zealand, then disowned them. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives.

Employment Rights Bill

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Before I summarise the Opposition’s view on the Bill, I pay tribute to those on the Conservative Benches who contributed during its passage. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has held the Government to account with forensic skill on Report and in Committee. He was joined in the Bill Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) and for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) performed great service as members of the Select Committee. I also acknowledge the work of officials in the Department and in Parliament. Their job cannot have been easy, given the indecent haste with which the Bill has been produced.

We disagree on much, but it would be churlish of me not to recognise that today represents a personal victory for the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). While the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) lie low, there is no doubt who has been in the driving seat. [Interruption.] Well, he is now. He’s here now. It is very—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

[Andrew Griffith]

We welcome him to his place.

At least the Deputy Prime Minister is honest in her unwavering support for the trade union agenda. She is proud to walk in the footsteps of Neil Kinnock, Michael Foot and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), a conviction politician in the proper sense of the word, not a politician with convictions like the Labour Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury). It makes a welcome change—[Interruption.] Well, he’s going. It makes a welcome change from a Prime Minister who pretends the Bill is about growth.

It is not easy for the right hon. Lady. It is always awkward being at odds with your boss: he says grow, you say slow; he wants fewer regulators, you create new ones. We all remember how in 2021 she herself was a victim of fire and rehire by a bad boss. Just wait until he sees the higher unemployment, higher prices and lower growth that the Bill will bring. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Andrew Griffith]

I’ll do that again: higher unemployment, higher prices and lower growth. No wonder the right hon. Lady is in favour of making it harder to be sacked.

This is a sad day for business and a bad day for Parliament. Business will have watched the last two days with dismay—[Interruption.] They will watch this with dismay as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. As they struggle with the Chancellor’s job tax and with the business rates hike about to hit next month, they see hundreds of pages of red tape heading their way. They will have seen the Minister yesterday, asked to name a single small business who supports the Bill, reel off the names of three large ones, two of which turned out not to support it anyway and the third was a quote from the chief inclusion officer at the Co-op. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) put it well yesterday when he said the Government plan to increase the number of small businesses by starting with large ones and making them smaller.

No one who cares about Parliament legislating well can be proud of how we have got here: a rushed Bill which was introduced at half the length to which it has now grown; an impact assessment which the Regulatory Policy Committee described as not fit for purpose; over 260 pages of amendments, few of which were scrutinized in Committee; and speeches in favour that have leaned heavily in support of the trade unions who stand to gain so much financially from the Bill.

But my final word goes to the real—[Interruption.] I can do some more. The final word goes to the real victims—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The final word goes to the real victims of this Bill. Faced with this legislation, employers will take fewer risks on new employees. As a result, this Bill will hit young people disproportionately hard. They do not have the track record to rely on someone giving them the chance, a first step into the world of work.

Unlike so many Labour Members, whose first job was at a comfortable desk in TUC Congress House, my first job was at a supermarket. That company was able to take a risk on a young Andrew Griffith with no career experience; it was able to take that chance because it knew that I could not start work in the morning and then file an employment tribunal claim in the afternoon.

I know that for many Labour Cabinet members career experience on their CV is a sensitive topic, but that does not excuse what is a vindictive attack on the next generation. The truth is that Labour do not understand business. They do not understand what it takes to grow; they never have and they never will. Every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they started, and that is why we cannot support this terrible Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Department for Business and Trade

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

There was no money left.

[Liam Byrne]

Well, there was an awful lot more money than there is now. We certainly did not have a debt interest bill of £100 billion a year, which is what the bill has risen to, and why so many difficult choices are having to be taken. At that time, we were beginning genuinely to consider how to create single, pooled funds that came together from different Government Departments. A challenge for us in the House is that we have to reflect on the fact that we reinforce silos in Government, and do not reinforce joined-up Government. This estimates debate is a good example: we are considering the accounts of the Department for Business and Trade, but in an ideal world we would also have here Ministers from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and a couple of other Departments, and we would ask those Ministers how they were working together to deliver a joined-up offer to our business community, because businesses have not got time to muck around and deal with all the red tape; they are trying to build a business.

Closure of High Street Services: Rural Areas

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate. We have had a delightful virtual tour of every one of the nations around our United Kingdom this morning.

I speak not only as the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade but as the MP for rural Arundel and South Downs in West Sussex. The vast majority of my constituents live in rural areas. They rely on small high street businesses and services, including pharmacies, post offices and local banks, for all aspects of their lives—to access cash, to put food on their table, to pour their pints and to provide the products they need to care for themselves and their families. Local high streets are the heart of our communities, and we are talking today about a fragile ecosystem—an ecosystem that is facing extinction.

The choices that the Government made in the autumn statement will be terminal for thousands of businesses on our high streets across the country. It is difficult to overstate the headwinds that the Government have placed upon those businesses. The jobs tax—the increase in national insurance contributions and reduction in the threshold—means that employers will be forced to pay more and will leave shopkeepers, hairdressers, postmasters and publicans wondering how they will keep staff on their payroll this year. It is a highly regressive measure that will hit the low paid and part time the most. The chief executive officer of UKHospitality, Kate Nicholls, has said that the increase in NICs will cost the hospitality industry more than £1 billion, and predicts business closures and job losses within the year. Not a single pub, café or restaurant on our rural high streets will go untouched.

The Government’s decision to restrict flexible employment contracts will predictably leave high street businesses, which rely on flexible staff, in an impossible situation, without any hope of staffing for seasonal peaks and troughs. The British Institute of Innkeeping has warned that the Budget will cause 75% of pubs to cut their hours, 40% to reduce further their opening times, and one in three to make staff redundant. That was always a predictable outcome.

The cancellation of the community ownership fund has removed a potential safety net for communities. For business owners who have built a legacy, taking risks and employing local people over the course of their career, there is a real question mark over what will happen to their enterprise following the Government’s vindictive family business death tax. The Farm Retail Association said yesterday that as many as one in two farm shops could be forced to close their doors in the coming years. Farm shops are being hit by one aspect of the Budget, and local farmers who supply produce by another.

A number of Members rightly spoke about the importance of local post offices and banking hubs. They are absolutely right that they are a crucial lifeline for isolated communities, and I know from personal experience that they have been forced to overcome challenges in recent years. Banking hubs are important not just for access to cash, but to support the growing elderly proportion of our population. They are also vital in enabling high street traders to deposit their takings so that they can continue to take cash. As the responsible Minister at the time, I opened some of the earliest banking hubs. The Minister has continued to pursue that agenda, and I hope he will confirm today that the target of 500 banking hubs—one for almost every constituency—by 2030 remains.

The official Opposition will not apologise for standing up for small businesses. I believe that the Minister is a good man, but he should admit the truth that he will not speak: the Treasury does not have businesses’ back. Unless rapidly reversed, the measures in the Budget will devastate access to rural services and ruin our rural high streets. People will lose their jobs, and shutters will close forever.