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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

In the week of Labour’s latest reset, how does the Minister reconcile imposing an additional £5 billion of costs on business—on the Government’s own figures—with growing the economy? What was it about the breakfast with the Prime Minister that saw bosses laying off more workers 24 hours later?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

The chemical industry has been suffering for many years because of the previous Government’s economic policies, crashing the economy under Liz Truss and failing to deal with energy prices over multiple years. I have met the chemical industry. It is an important part of our economy, and we need to do what we can to protect it. I am having conversations, and we are building our energy policies. We are building our industrial strategy.

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

Word salad!

[Sarah Jones]

Word salad? Gosh. That abuse from the Opposition Front Bench has cut me to the core. The industrial strategy has set out eight sectors that will turbocharge the economy. Across all those sectors lie our foundational sectors, of which the chemical industry is one. We will support that industry in a way that his Government failed to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Next week, members of the Public and Commercial Services Union in the Department for Business and Trade are once again out on strike. Does the Minister consider the union’s demands to be reasonable? Will Ministers cross picket lines to return to work?

[Sarah Jones]

The shadow Secretary of State shows a new-found respect for the trade unions, after the previous Government’s failure to engage with them caused multiple strikes and huge amounts of wasted money. The contract is not directly with the Department, but obviously we work with PCS and all our trade unions. I regularly meet our trade unions to make sure that we have good workers’ rights.

Competition and Markets Authority Chairman

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on the position of the chairman of the Competition and Markets Authority.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

Following the resignation of the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority, Marcus Bokkerink, the Secretary of State has appointed Doug Gurr as the interim chair for a period of up to 18 months while our new permanent chair is appointed. The Secretary of State has expressed his gratitude for Marcus’s leadership of the board of the CMA since his appointment in September 2022, and for the work of the CMA in that time, particularly in response to cost of living pressures.

As the Prime Minister set out in his speech at the international investment summit, this Government will ensure that every regulator in the UK focuses on growth. Given Doug Gurr’s background and experience as an entrepreneur and business leader, and his clear under-standing of the importance of new and developing technologies such as artificial intelligence, he will bring the necessary strategic leadership to the CMA to enable it to promote growth for the benefit of businesses and consumers. As set out in the industrial strategy Green Paper, the Government will shortly be consulting on a new growth-focused strategic steer for the CMA. While respecting the independence of the CMA and the decision making of its panel members, the steer will be clear about the Government’s expectations of the CMA in supporting growth across the economy.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Griffith]

Thank you for granting this important urgent question, Mr Speaker.

What a desperate state we are in when the Business Secretary has to phone up the regulators to beg them for ideas to fix the lack of growth that his own Government’s policies have created. I hope that when the regulators attended the roundtable last week, including the chairman of the CMA, they had the courage to put at the top of their list scrapping the Business Secretary’s 150-page, job-destroying and trade union-inspired Employment Rights Bill; or to point out the jobs tax in the Chancellor’s Budget, Labour’s socialist attacks on inheritance and non-doms, and the family business death tax that is causing one wealth creator to leave this country every 45 minutes; or even to point out that one of the best opportunities that this country has for growth would be to get on a plane to our closest trading partner, the United States, and secure a trade deal, rather than lob juvenile insults at President Trump or fail to invite Elon Musk to the Government’s UK investment summit.

It is certainly the case that, while regulators have a role, they generally depress growth and drive risk aversion, bureaucracy and slow decision making. Asking regulators to boost growth is a bit like asking the village speed watch to organise the next British grand prix. I am a fan of speed watch.

The Conservative party is under new management, and we are unafraid to back wealth creators and risk takers. We are unashamed to say that we need fewer civil servants and arm’s length regulators so that our businesses carry less dead weight in the global race to be competitive, but dismissing the non-executive, part-time chair of the CMA seems a curious place to start. He is not responsible for day-to-day decision making at the CMA; that is the job of the chief executive. Did they aim and miss? Can the Minister confirm whether there are plans to change the Government’s view on the CMA’s remit, to play the ball and not the man? What evaluation has there been of all regulators as part of this process, and when will the Government publish it?

[Justin Madders]

I think there were a couple of questions in there about the role of the CMA chair. Of course, he did not get sacked; he resigned. A new strategic steer for the CMA will be coming out in due course. The hon. Gentleman’s tirade of criticisms of this Government was a bit rich coming from a man who was in the Treasury when the last Government crashed the economy. I would point out that PwC announced only this week that we were the second most attractive country in the world to invest in, and that the International Monetary Fund last week upgraded our growth predictions for this year. We are going to be the highest-growing major economy in Europe this year, and that shows our determination to get the growth going, which was something that his Government failed completely on.

Harland & Wolff

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. The famous yellow gantry of Harland & Wolff stands tall, not only on the skyline of Belfast but in the history of our nation. It is difficult to overstate what Harland & Wolff means to people in the communities of Belfast, Appledore, Arnish and Methil. Extended families across the country will welcome today’s confirmation that the shipbuilding contract that we awarded in government will now proceed. There remain, however, many unanswered questions, which I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could answer. If he cannot answer them at the Dispatch Box today, I would be grateful if he or the Defence Secretary would write in the coming days.

First, at a time of enormous geopolitical uncertainty, can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no change to the in-service date of the three fleet solid support ships, with the first ship entering service as expected in the fourth quarter of 2028? Secondly, what funding or commitment, if any, has been provided by any part of the Government to Navantia to secure this finalised deal? If so, which budget will that be appropriated from? Has he received state aid clearance for the transaction and, if not, could he clarify the process by which that will now be obtained?

The Secretary of State said in his statement that the Department has agreed the

“absolute minimum of changes to the contract,”

but the statement provides absolutely nothing whatsoever as to what that actually conceals. Can he guarantee, as Navantia promised as part of its original bid for the contract, that no less than 60% of the whole supply chain activity will take place in the UK? Will he confirm that there are no additional work packages beyond those originally envisaged moving from Belfast or anywhere in the UK to Puerto Real in Cádiz? Above all, will he assure the workers and their families who are watching that the final assembly and systems integration, which is where much of the high-value work sits for all three of those vital ships, will take place in Belfast, rather than in Navantia’s parent shipyards in Spain?

The Secretary of State will appreciate that it is sometimes hard, though one tries, to take him at his word after the number of impacts on business over the past few months. The wider context—though welcome in respect of this particular contract and these defence jobs—is the large-scale uncertainty that our defence companies, contractors, workers and employees face about the timetable for the Government to reach 2.5% on defence spending. They do not have the certainty that Harland & Wolff workers now do this Christmas. We do not even have a timeline for a timeline as to when that 2.5% will be hit, and we have seen a degree of equivocation on exactly when the strategic defence review will be published. Again, I would be grateful if the Secretary of State clarified that or if a colleague wrote to me.

It is, at the end of the day, action not words. We welcome this deal for Harland & Wolff and the certainty that it will provide to workers and their families, and I thank the Department officials for their work on that, but there are still many questions to be answered.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Secretary of State. Having served in his Department, I too will be paying close attention to the answer.

Post Office Redress and Funding

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

As shadow Secretary of State, I can say on behalf of every Conservative Member that we are committed to working collaboratively with the Government to deliver the appropriate redress to all those affected by the Horizon scandal and any issues relating to the Capture software. Many of the actions on which the Minister has updated the House were initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). As my hon. Friend has said, Ministers will have our full support in the swift delivery of redress and the overturning of the convictions of those affected by this wide-ranging scandal. The Conservative party welcomes the redress schemes that have been implemented to remedy the gross miscarriages of justice that have affected hundreds of families across the country. Our only focus now must be on processing claims to get those schemes completed as quickly as possible.

There remain a number of questions following the Minister’s statement that I would be grateful if he would clarify. I understand that the Kroll report did not publish any conclusions about the safety of criminal convictions. The Horizon advisory group had already recommended that the Government introduce legislation to overturn the convictions of postmasters who fell victim to the Capture scheme. I read that the Government have deferred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission on that matter. Could the Minister update us on what conversations he has had with the CCRC in relation to the process of overturning convictions?

The redress that the Minister has announced is welcome news, but there remains a lack of specific detail on how the affected parties can expect progress. Will he set out a timeline for the redress of postmasters affected by Capture? He said that he has instructed the Post Office to write to 16,000 potentially affected former postmasters, urging them to come forward if they believe they have a claim to make, and that those letters have been sent. Can he confirm when they were sent?

Is the Minister able to provide an update on his conversations with Fujitsu? How much has Fujitsu contributed to date? What meetings has he had, and where are we on that important aspect of this process? It was concerning to learn back in September that only a small handful of claims had been offered redress through the Horizon convictions redress scheme and, at that point, no full and final settlements had been made through that scheme. Could the Minister reassure the House that the Government are not just opening the door to those claims, but managing the process of getting them heard, resolved, and ultimately redressed? I was pleased to hear that additional staff have been seconded to facilitate the compensation scheme—I welcome that and thank the Minister—but can he confirm how many have been seconded and from where, and can he give the House an assurance that they will remain seconded for as long as is necessary?

Finally, we welcome the Government’s announcement of £37.5 million of network subsidy. It was announced in yesterday’s written ministerial statement, and it is indeed welcome news. The Minister said that it is for this year, so would he clarify whether that relates to the period up until the end of March 2025? What certainty is there of funding beyond that period so that we can all proceed on a sustainable footing? Is it only for this year, or does it also cover the fiscal year 2025-26?

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his willingness to work with us collaboratively on providing redress not only to the victims of the Horizon scandal, but to the victims of the Capture software issues.

The shadow Secretary of State referenced the Kroll report. As he and, I suspect, other Members of the House who have followed this issue closely will be aware, Kroll did not take a specific view on convictions. We are aware that a small number of sub-postmasters—those who believed they were victims of using the Capture software, given the shortfalls it generated and the way they were treated by the Post Office as a result—have referred their claims to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. We have instructed the Post Office to work at speed to review what evidence it can provide to the CCRC to help it make decisions on the safety of those convictions. Similarly, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is looking at a number of cases, and we have similarly instructed the Post Office to co-operate with it as quickly as it can.

On Capture redress, yesterday we met sub-postmasters who have campaigned on Capture, and indeed Lord Beamish, to update them on the steps we will take. We will work at pace. As I said in my statement, we face a significant challenge with the amount of evidence available. For example, no central record has as yet been found of the number of Capture users or of who they were. We are nevertheless going to be working to design a redress scheme. We will consult sub-postmasters and the Horizon compensation advisory board. As I have said, I will bring forward an update on where we have got to by next spring.

On the 16,000 letters that the Post Office has sent out, I can confirm that they have gone out very recently—the shadow Secretary of State will forgive me if I do not have the exact dates. He rightly aired again the concern about the responsibility of Fujitsu, which is felt across the House. I am sure that he will recognise that we need to wait for Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry to report, to give us a better understanding of the scale of Fujitsu’s responsibilities and, therefore, its potential liabilities. We have said that we will respond to the inquiry’s recommendations at pace, and certainly within six months. I am sure that he will opine on Fujitsu, and we will respond accordingly.

On the Horizon convictions redress scheme, the then Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), and I had the pleasure of appearing before the Business and Trade Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), to update it on progress in overturning the convictions following the legislation last summer. She committed the Ministry to completing its work of assessing the cases by the end of January, and I understand that it still intends to do so. We have already paid out some £79 million as part of our responsibilities to provide redress to those whose convictions were overturned.

Lastly, on the network subsidy uplift, the shadow Secretary of State will understand that the money is just for this year. Spending review discussions are taking place across Government, and the Post Office is an active part of those discussions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the Secretary of State that these are topical questions, and contributions should be short. I come to the shadow Secretary of State for a good example.

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

One of the great British innovations is the gift of free trade, lifting billions out of poverty abroad and increasing prosperity at home. Thanks to the Conservatives, this week the UK proudly joined the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, a bloc that includes some of the world’s fastest-growing economies, as well as major trading partners and investors, such as Japan and Canada. With the Government having precious little else to show on growth so far, will the Secretary of State update the House on when he expects to conclude free trade deals with the Gulf, with India and with the US?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

At least we have some things we can agree on there, which is a nice start to the Christmas period. I agree that the UK has always been and must be a champion of free trade in a world where trade issues will be politically significant in 2025. We can work together on that future. We believe that we have progressed the Gulf Co-operation Council trade deal significantly. The shadow Secretary of State will know that there were some problems between the previous Government and some countries in the GCC, particularly the UAE, where the relationship had unfortunately got into a difficult place. We have repaired that and the talks are going well. It is always a mistake to put a deadline on those, because it can limit our negotiating potential. When it comes to the US, we will see what happens with the President-elect, but I am looking forward to negotiation and discussion about that.

[Mr Speaker]

Come on, Secretary of State.

[Andrew Griffith]

The Secretary of State can count on our support to bring those deals forward. It pains me to say it, but as we have heard today, business confidence is at an all-time low, bar the pandemic. Hiring is collapsing and companies are fleeing. Labour has talked growth, but it has delivered decline. The one game changer now would be a US trade deal. Will the Secretary of State urge the Prime Minister to stop obsessing about going backwards into the EU and agree with me at this Christmas time that the best gift for British business would be for the Prime Minister to get on a plane to Washington and talk trade with President Trump?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am afraid that the shadow Secretary of State’s analysis is too simplistic. The US is a major trade partner and always will be, but he will know that so is the European Union and another area is our trade with China. The future for the UK is being positioned to get the maximum benefit from all those key markets. The kind of agreement that he puts forward would have major ramifications for British agriculture in particular, and he knows the issues associated with that. We cannot consider one of those trade negotiations without considering the impact on all those key trading relationships. I ask him to consider the issue in a more holistic and complete way.