Employment Rights Bill

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

Strikes were a failure of the Tory Government who had stopped listening and, to be frank, had stopped working, so I will not be taking any further interventions from the hon. Gentleman.

We want to create a modern and positive framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive and constructive engagement, respects the democratic mandate of unions and works to reset our industrial relations. Nonetheless, we recognise that this issue has generated debate, which is why the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu that will require the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of electronic balloting on the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so. We have previously committed to aligning the removal of the threshold with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. This amendment gives statutory effect to that commitment and makes it explicit in the underlying legislation. In having regard to the effects of e-balloting, the Government will monitor and assess the practical impacts of e-balloting on participant rates and the 50% threshold.

To conclude, I urge hon. Members to support the Government’s motions before the House today, including our amendments in lieu, which are part of a package that strengthens rights and reflects the value we place on fair work. We have listened throughout the Bill’s passage and made meaningful changes where needed, and we will continue to listen to all relevant stakeholders as we move into implementation We are committed to full and comprehensive consultation with employers, workers, trade unions and civil society. As set out in our “Implementing the Employment Rights Bill” road map, we are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure that stakeholders have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure, and will help us to implement each in the interests of all. This is a win-win for employers, employees and a more competitive British economy.

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

Act in haste, repent at leisure: never has that been wiser advice than in respect of this Bill. It is a rushed Bill that was half-baked when it was introduced, and has got worse since. It has failed every test of scrutiny, from the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to the Constitution Committee, to its low-balled impact assessment.

On the day that the Mayfield report outlines the scale of the challenge that we face on worklessness, it will create generation jobless. Every family in the country will know a son, daughter, niece or nephew who cannot get work as a result. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) reminds us, every Labour Government leaves unemployment higher than when they started, but only this Government have actually legislated for that.

The Minister asks us to disagree with all the main compromise amendments from the other place. If she wished to listen to stakeholders, now would be a fantastic moment to start. Her motions to disagree reject sensible compromises on qualifying periods, seasonal working, guaranteed hours, strike thresholds and opting in to political funds. Who will be the victims if the motions are carried today? Young people, the neurodiverse, those with a disability, female returners to work, the over 50s and former prisoners—some of the most vulnerable groups in society who deserve their chance in life, their shot at employment and a job.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman said the Conservatives

“will repeal those most damaging elements of the Employment Rights Bill”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 776.]

Could he inform us which elements of the Bill they will retain?

[Andrew Griffith]

We will have our work cut out, with its 330 pages and 122,000 words—[Interruption.] Labour Members seek to hide behind measures that we support, such as enhanced maternity rights. But will the hon. Member tell me how many times the word “maternity” appears in the Bill, and how many times the word “union”—his paymasters—appears in it?

[Laurence Turner]

I did not realise that was a genuine offer. I do not have the ctrl+F function in front of me to do a word count, but, again, I would be interested in hearing an answer to the question I posed to the hon. Gentleman. All I will say is that, as his colleague the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said in Committee, trade union-associated MPs have been assiduous at declaring donations. I think only one Member on the Conservative side has declared an interest throughout all these proceedings; I find that utterly incredible.

[Andrew Griffith]

I trust that you will want all Members this afternoon to declare any relevant interests, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have none. To answer the question that the hon. Gentleman did not manage to answer, the word “maternity” appears in this Bill three times; the word “union” appears in this Bill 478 times. Follow the money, Madam Deputy Speaker.

With unemployment higher every month—[Interruption.] Listen and learn. This will be Labour’s legacy: with unemployment higher every month of this Government, it is a bleak time for those trying to find work. The independent Office for National Statistics estimates that vacancies are down by 115,000 since this Government came into office. Some 41% of those graduating in 2023 were not in full-time work 15 months later, and it is estimated that almost half the top 100 UK employers have reduced their graduate intake. In fact, graduates are competing for so few jobs that getting a job is as improbable as spotting a Labour Member who has not received a union donation.

But it is not just graduates: for many, seasonal work is the first opportunity to get a foot on the career ladder yet this Bill in its current form forces hospitality businesses or anyone who relies on seasonal workers into an impossible position. That is why we are supportive of the Lords’ compromise amendment that would allow employers who need flexibility across the calendar year to continue to have it; what could be so objectionable about that?

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The hon. Gentleman is talking about seasonal work but has he thought about the impact on young people of so-called zero-hours contracts and the pressure that puts on their being able to live a decent life and plan for the future? I was at a conference last week about mental health in the workplace, which Opposition Members are concerned about. Zero-hours contracts and flexible working are really difficult for young people, and we must address their concerns as well.

[Andrew Griffith]

Mental health is a huge issue; across the House we would agree on that and the Mayfield report this morning is just one of many contributions to the debate. But for so many—this goes to reform of our welfare system as well—the right answer will be to be in employment, and the Mayfield report talks about creating barriers to employers giving young people a chance. There will of course be some challenges with any form of contracted employment, including zero-hours, which many find a very flexible way of combining work with study and parental or other responsibilities.

The way to try to solve that challenge across this House is not the clunking fist of regulation dictating and providing perverse incentives and maybe unintended consequences, which mean that employers do not take a chance at all on young people and they do not get that first step on the employment ladder. I understand that the hon. Lady’s concerns and contributions are well meant, but that is why it would be so much better if we approached the Bill collectively, after so many hours of debate in Committee in this place and in the other place, and if the Government showed compromise to help mitigate—not shelve the Bill, as I might prefer—some of the worst damage that will manifest itself in fewer jobs, fewer opportunities and some of the most vulnerable finding it very hard to get into work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

The answer to that question is the Chartered Management Institute.

[Andrew Griffith]

Well, I am glad we have found one; I have not had any representations from it.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

The shadow Secretary of State is showing how much he despises the trade union movement and ordinary working people—[Interruption.]

[Ian Lavery]

I must declare a financial interest with regard to my connection with the trade union movement: I am a very proud member of a trade union.

In response to what the shadow Secretary of State said about support for the Employment Rights Bill, it was a manifesto pledge and the British public voted in their millions to support the Labour party to put this manifesto pledge through in its entirety. And guess what? That is what we are doing.

[Andrew Griffith]

I ask the Member strongly to withdraw that: I do not despise trade unions; not a single word I have ever said at the Dispatch Box indicates anything of the sort, and I would ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to get the Member to withdraw that comment as it is not worthy of him. I would have hoped for better form in the conduct of this debate.

I support people’s rights to trade unions—well-regulated trade unions. For 30 years, the Labour party accepted a broad consensus on the balance between the rights of workers and the rights of employers. Tony Blair never sought at any point to reopen the consensus on that balance that has served this country well, and it does no one a service to render people unemployed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew Griffith]

I should give way to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who did so much service on this Bill.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. I am pleased that he has learned to count now; he must have improved his skills since his time under Liz Truss in the Treasury. He talked about the consensus over 30 years, but was it not his Government who introduced the Trade Union Act 2016, which did so much to damage trade union relations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I am trying to be generous to the hon. Member, as this Bill was part of his legacy before he was so rudely fired by a bad boss without any notice.

It is not unreasonable to say that a strike must be supported by a mere quarter of workers in order to be valid. I do not think the Labour party would claim the mandate that the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) was talking about on the votes of merely a quarter.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is not being very clear. Does he like the pre-2016 trade union regime, which is the one this Bill takes us back to, or does he like the post-2016 trade union regime, which is the one he seems to be advocating except when he talks about the 30 years of settled consensus? Which is it, because it cannot be both?

[Andrew Griffith]

We on the Conservative Benches seek to respect the role of trade unions, but in a flexible workplace where we see growth in the economy and—unlike what we see today—more people in jobs, rather than fewer people in jobs. That does not help anybody at all, least of all a Government who claim that their No. 1 obsession is growth. That is not an unreasonable position.

Not for the first time, I think Ministers have got themselves in a bind. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade is going around telling business groups that he is listening, but every one of them is against this Bill. From what the Health Secretary has been saying privately, it is clear that he is no fan of giving more power to militant unions to call low turnout strikes. The welfare Secretary has commissioned reports on getting people from welfare into work, and those reports talk about not disincentivising employers from hiring. Are Treasury Ministers really looking forward to the Office for Budget Responsibility next week scoring the impact of this Bill, given the independent estimates that it could shave up to 2.8% off GDP? The Chancellor likes to blame everyone from the dinosaurs onwards for her failure, but this one will definitely be on her.

The looming disaster of this Bill is the truth that dare not speak its name. It may be a triumph for the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), but it is a disaster for Britain. It is bad for business, bad for growth, and bad for jobs. Far from furthering workers’ rights, it punishes those who want a job. We do not protect workers by bankrupting their employers. Even the Government’s allies are warning them against this Bill.

Government Members have a choice. They can stand by and watch as their Government bring into law decades-worth of economic stagnation, or they can be on the side of the young, the vulnerable and the enterprising. History will remember this moment, because when unemployment skyrockets, businesses shut their doors, and young people stop believing and stop hoping, no one on the Government Benches will be able to say that they were not warned.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am proud to declare an interest as a lifelong trade unionist in the labour movement, which has helped me to get where I am today. Let me start by placing on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and all those colleagues in the other place who spent so many late nights working on this Bill.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden) to the Front Bench. She was among the many trade union leaders who helped to develop this Bill before it came to this place. The shadow Secretary of State thinks that the Bill was cooked up on the back of a fag packet, but it took years and millions of union members and ordinary people in this country, who have faced decimation since the Conservatives’ Bill in 2016. I offer my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax in finishing her job, because the House will know that this Bill is unfinished business.

I started my working life as a carer on casual terms, not knowing if there was going to be a pay cheque from month to month. It was because of a good, unionised job with decent conditions that my life and the lives of the workers I represented changed. As I toured the country in the election campaign, in every community I heard from so many who were in the same position—they wanted change, they wanted fairness and they wanted respect at work. That is why when we promised to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, we meant it.

It is very clear from the shadow Secretary of State’s opening remarks, and from what he said as the Bill passed through the House, that the Conservatives do not want to improve working people’s lives. In fact, it is very clear from his submission today—let us face it—that he wants to water the Bill down. When he mentioned the state of tribunals, I nearly fell off my chair. I cannot believe he can say that with a straight face, after the state in which the Conservatives left our justice system. I won’t even talk about the economic mess they left us in.

Despite the fierce criticism from Opposition parties and the relentless lobbying from vested interests, I am proud to speak in this debate as we deliver nothing less than a new deal for working people. Every time we have made progress on employment rights over the last 45 years, it has been resisted. It is always easier to do nothing—to take the path of least resistance—but in each generation, it has been the Labour party that has had the courage and conviction to change lives. Maternity allowance; equal pay for women; health and safety rights; the minimum wage—Labour changed lives, and this generation is no different.

This Bill shows that Labour is on the side of working people. They will know that ordinary people are better off, and it will have an effect on their families—their children, their brothers and their sisters. They will have basic rights from day one, such as protection from unfair dismissal. I cannot believe the Conservative party thinks that in this day and age we should dismiss people unfairly. I do not understand it.

We are going to strengthen sick pay, family rights, bereavement leave and protections from sexual harassment at work. We will have a ban on zero-hours contracts, a historic fair pay agreement in social care, an end to fire and rehire, a genuine living wage and the single biggest boost to rights at work in a generation, creating an economy that works for working people. That was the promise we made to the British public, and I urge the Secretary of State to fight every step of the way to deliver it in full. The public have no patience for the Tory and Lib Dem lords who, cheered on by Reform, are standing in the way of better rights for workers and frustrating what was a clear manifesto promise. Tonight, this House will once again send the message that we will not back down.

I will not go through every Lords amendment, but I will pick out a couple of the most damaging. First, Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120 would break the pledge that we made to the British people to give them day one rights. The last Conservative Government shamefully doubled the qualification period against unfair dismissal to two years and stripped workers of protections at the stroke of a pen, and now they are at it again. Government Members believe that workers deserve fairness, dignity and respect at work, and they deserve it from day one on the job. Opposition Members say that these rights against unfair dismissal will slow down hiring, so let me be clear that employers can absolutely still have probation periods for their new staff; they just will not be able to fire them unfairly at will, for no good reason.

Secondly, Lords amendment 1B would tear up protections for workers on zero-hours contracts. This Government made a commitment to provide workers with an offer of guaranteed hours, and the Lords amendment would water down that right. We promised to ban zero-hours contracts—no ifs, no buts—and that is exactly what we should do. This Bill is a promise we made to the British public. It is our duty to deliver it, and I say to my Front-Bench colleagues that I will be with them every step of the way as we do just that.

Make no mistake: the Bill is good for workers, and good for business. It is not just the right thing to do; it is the foundation for the high-growth, high-skill economy that the UK needs. Its key measures are backed by many of Britain’s best businesses, including the Co-op, Centrica and Richer Sounds. Those businesses prove that if you treat people well, you get the best out of them. They know that being pro-worker is not a barrier to success, but a launchpad to it. That is why the Bill takes the very best standards from the very best businesses and extends them to millions of workers. It is also why we say proudly that this is a pro-business and pro-worker Bill. Respected business voices, such as the Chartered Management Institute, have indicated their support for the key measures in the Bill. We will continue to consulting businesses and hear their voices, to make sure that we get the detail right.

Draft Trade Act 2021 (Power to Implement International Trade Agreements) (Extension to Expiry) Regulations 2025

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. His Majesty’s Opposition do not intend to detain the Committee any longer than necessary.

We welcome the Minister of State, whose feet have probably not touched the ground since his appointment, and wish him well in his endeavours to grow the economy by securing trade deals, lift people out of poverty and help to deliver the Government’s objective for growth. We are delighted that, in so doing, he is making the most of the benefits of Brexit—our freedom to determine our own trade deals. That is part of why the draft regulations are so important. Extension for another five years attracted the full support of the diligent House of Lords Legislative Scrutiny Committee—we thank it for its work, which is important in ensuring that this House discharges its job on secondary legislation properly. In this case, we are delighted to support the Government on the measure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

I welcome the team to their significant roles for the United Kingdom.

This week, the other place voted for five reasonable amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, representing a meaningful compromise with cross-party support to mitigate some of the worst of the damage caused by the Bill. As the Office for Budget Responsibility now scores the impact of that legislation, this is one of the last chances to avoid the costs, taxes and spending cuts that will result from it. Will the Secretary of State now put country before party, do the right thing by British business and accept those compromise amendments?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the shadow Secretary of State’s warm words. He shadowed me when I first went into my role at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology; he was then moved here before me, so I have followed him to this role. I watch with trepidation the next reshuffle on his Benches.

The shadow Secretary of State mentions the workers’ rights Bill, which is still between the two Houses; I hope we will be reconciled as soon as possible so that it can get Royal Assent and benefit workers and businesses right across the nation. Once the Bill passes, we will, of course, undertake a period of implementation. My predecessor and the previous Deputy Prime Minister, who championed this legislation, were clear from the outset that the Bill will modernise the British workplace so that it is beneficial for businesses and for the people who work in them.

The modern economy has changed; it is different from 20 years ago. The Conservatives had the time to modernise the economy and the relationships within workplaces, and they chose not to take that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I don’t want to do this, but this is topicals, and all these Members need to get in. We did not get through the list already. You have to help me to help them.

[Andrew Griffith]

I will save time, Mr Speaker, by not mentioning the 13 leading business organisations that have all called for certainty now—not well-intentioned future consultations on implementation, but certainty now, because jobs and the economy are bleeding out. The Secretary of State will know that even the Resolution Foundation—that wonderful finishing school for aspiring Labour Ministers—said this week that some of the measures in the Bill should not be proceeded with.

[Peter Kyle]

Again, the Conservatives had 14 years in which the economy was changing. They had the chance to tackle zero-hours contracts, and what did they do? Nothing. They had the chance to tackle fire and rehire, and they did nothing. They had the chance to tackle the challenges of being an app-based employee, and they chose to do nothing. We are acting to modernise the economy and the relationship out there between businesses and workers because that is what is needed. It is what workers and businesses need, and it is what this Government are delivering.

Employment Rights Bill

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, and congratulate him as well as the hon. Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden) and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) on their appointments. His is a vital role in Government, and it will surely be a delight and a privilege for him to champion our hard-working, innovative businesses in Cabinet and on the world stage as President of the Board of Trade. I particularly welcome his comments that the Government’s priority must be to “double down” on growth and position themselves as

“an active partner that delivers success, supports new business and backs wealth creation.”

Where he does that, he can be assured of our support, but if that is really his view, we should not be debating this Bill today and the Government should never have brought it forward.

In fact, I well understand why Ministers may well be concerned about job insecurity and last-minute shift cancellations. After all, their predecessors, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), had their own Front Bench shifts today cancelled by the Prime Minister with barely a week’s notice. Apparently, that boss did not even have the decency to fire them in person, but at least they can take comfort in knowing that with the current rate of departures from No. 10, there will soon not be anyone left to do the sacking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Does the shadow Minister understand the difference between fair dismissal and unfair dismissal?

[Andrew Griffith]

The shadow Minister absolutely understands that. He does so and understands the implication of clause 23 from having spoken to Make UK, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, all of whom urge the Government to rethink on this clause. Business does not recognise a process that ends in a full legal tribunal, flanked by lawyers, after typically a two-year wait and lost management time, as light-touch. Legal fees alone for defending an unfair dismissal case range from £15,000 to £20,000.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that very few cases end up in a tribunal, particularly at a point where all due process happens? Not all dismissals are unfair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

Of course not all dismissals are unfair, but if it was not a process that ended up in court or in a tribunal, we would not be facing a backlog of 491,000 individuals with current open cases—by the Government’s own figures—and business organisations would not be citing legal fees in that order of magnitude.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

One reason that so many of those cases do not end up in a tribunal is that businesses, cognisant of the loss of management time and £15,000 to £20,000 in fees, simply pay up rather than contest.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend, with his experience, is exactly right. Just think about the impact on a small business of a fee of that magnitude and the length of time it takes to get justice.

What is going to happen? This is a really important point. Those on the Government Benches will be living this reality over the remainder of their term, and they will have to account for it. Businesses will be discouraged from hiring anybody without a perfect CV and a proven track record of work. Who are we talking about? We are talking about young people, people with dyslexia and related conditions, and people with a period of inactivity on their CVs—such as former prisoners seeking a second chance to go straight. Those will be the victims of that particular measure.

Labour Ministers should realise that they will be the first victims of disagreeing with Lords amendment 62. The long-standing principle here is a simple one: we should not be allowing strikes to be called when a majority of union members have not even voted, let alone voted in favour. A strike could still proceed with just over a quarter of those eligible. Opposing this amendment will guarantee that unions are held hostage by a militant minority who force strikes even when the union’s own members do not support one. We can ill afford more strikes that crush growth, prevent workers from getting to work and endanger lives, and the public will not forget the change that this Government seek to make.

Amendment 61 is a Cross-Bench Lords amendment that would maintain a consensus arrived at by the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee—that only those who actively choose to contribute to a political fund opt in to do so. This is a basic principle that the Government have applied to services everywhere else in the economy, from beauty boxes, gyms and meditation apps to Netflix and newspaper subscriptions. Why should Britain’s workers not enjoy the same right? The only conceivable reason—it brings shame on anyone who votes against the amendment—is to swell the coffers of one political party.

Lords amendment 47, on the right to be accompanied, tries to finally level the playing field for the 80% of workers who are not in a union, but should have the same rights as trade union members to be supported in a disciplinary or grievance hearing. By voting against this modest but important reform, Labour is preserving what is essentially a closed shop that unions use to push people who do not want to join into doing so. We scrapped the closed shop decades ago, and no one should be bringing it back as a means of pressuring vulnerable workers into paying into union coffers.

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

Will the hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I will happily give way if the hon. Gentleman will talk about the other organisations that will do a brilliant job of representing employees.

[Gareth Snell]

Well, that wouldn’t be the Tory party, would it, Madam Deputy Speaker?

What the shadow Secretary of State seems not to understand is that workers cannot turn up to a trade union and go, “I’ve got a problem. Can I join and get representation, please?”. Almost every union in this country requires a qualifying period to get the representation he talks about—the idea that this is a closed shop is just nonsense.

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Member has probably wilfully misinterpreted what I said. I am talking about the right for individuals to be represented by a trade union or by a qualified professional from another domain, such as a qualified lawyer.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—we are missing him already.

[Justin Madders]

I am glad to be back.

The shadow Secretary of State just talked about legal fees for firms when it comes to defending tribunal cases. If the right to be accompanied is expanded to include lawyers, the response of firms will be, “We had better get a lawyer too”, and that will just put up costs, will it not?

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Member has done a great deal of work on the Bill, and it is a great shame that he was cut short in his prime, but with respect the point is about choice for the individual. In many cases, the long-standing right will be to be represented by a trade union, but it could also be a mediator or a qualified professional in any other domain. The point is not to extinguish that choice, which is absolutely—he will know this—what the amendment would do. The Bill—from a Government who in too many domains are now tolerant of a two-tier system—creates a two-tier system for workers’ rights.

Lords amendment 1 is a typical example of where the Government do not understand or have failed to listen to businesses, particularly hospitality and seasonal businesses. What started as an attempt to ban zero-hours contracts has morphed into a chain around the necks of both employers and workers. The Government will no doubt cry about unintended consequences when the time comes, but I can tell them now that the consequences will be clear, and a cacophony of business groups such as UK Hospitality, the British Retail Consortium and the Federation of Small Businesses have explained this precisely to them. I gently say that if the Government feel so strongly about zero-hours contracts, the best way of putting their own house in order would be to start with tackling precisely those that operate in the armed forces reserves.

Lords amendment 48 would protect the countless businesses across the country that rely directly on seasonal work. From the coasts of Devon and Cornwall to Great Yarmouth, and from the Secretary of State’s and my own county of Sussex to Ayrshire, there are millions of workers employed in seasonal industries. Seasonal work often takes place in communities that are heavily reliant on tourism, both foreign and domestic, and that are competing in a competitive international market. The Government have already taken an axe to the hospitality and retail industries with the removals of relief. The amendment would be a very good way of going in some direction to support them.

In opposing Lords amendment 49, the Government are showing their commitment to ignore small business above all others. The Secretary of State says that he wants to listen to businesses, and I take him at his word, but why then oppose this amendment, which would codify precisely that? Countless small business will have a real challenge in dealing with this Bill, which is now 330 pages of red tape. Why on earth would the Government put their Members through the Lobby to oppose listening and consulting with small businesses?

We support Lords amendment 60, which has cross-party support, at the behest of millions of those who enjoy heritage railway attractions. If the Secretary of State has not yet made it to the Amberley museum, which is not that far from his constituency—[Interruption.] He knows of it? Well, he is welcome to come and visit and listen to how the volunteers who are gaining valuable experience will be affected.

I am perplexed about why the Government are so opposed to Lords amendment 46 on the protection of whistleblowers. It is genuinely confusing. Time and again Ministers on both sides of this House have come to the Dispatch Box to talk about Government scandals. We have seen brave people in organisations try to speak up and raise their concerns, only to have them dismissed. The Government claim that the Bill is about workers’ rights yet seem to have zero interest in protecting workers who try to reveal serious problems in the private and public sectors. I urge all colleagues to read that for themselves and to make up their own minds on where they think the right place to be is. Good luck to those who vote against that entirely reasonable amendment, which would protect people who do the right thing, and then have to try to explain to their constituents why they did so.

UK Internal Market

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Dr Huq. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on securing this last debate before the summer recess on this important topic. The UK’s internal market, forged over centuries through the Acts of Union, is the bedrock of economic prosperity. We are indeed stronger together, and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 has provided what should be a robust foundation for economic cohesion and non-discrimination.

I accept that challenges remain, and we have heard about them today. I thought the example—the illustration —of custard, visual metaphor though that was, was important. I regret the imperfections of the Windsor framework, and this Government with their reset have the potential to use their equities to significantly improve some of those arrangements in the UK internal market, should they so wish. The right hon. Member for East Antrim drew attention to the work done by the excellent Federation of Small Businesses, highlighting the very real problems and concerns.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend, with typical generosity, says that we are all trying to get this right. I established that that is largely true, with the possible exception of the EU itself. There are those in the European Union, stung by the wise decision of the British people to leave that awful body, who have never really accepted that decision and have made life as difficult as possible—both for this country and for the businesses described by right hon. and hon. Members in this debate.

[Andrew Griffith]

As ever, drawing on his extensive experience in this place, my right hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. We do not have time to revisit all the imperfections of the Brexit deal imposed upon us by a recalcitrant European Union, which turned out to be a very false friend.

We should hear from the Minister, and I want to afford him as much time as possible. But my party will of course support anything that removes frictions and reunites the territorial integrity of the whole United Kingdom. We want every small business to benefit from that frictionless relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom. Our Union depends on that single indivisible approach and the sort of practical solutions that we heard about, such as trusted trader schemes and utilising HMRC’s already extensive data collection and reporting framework to improve the operation of our internal market. That should be something that every Member of this House seeks to do. The Government have given up things like British fishing for 12 years; I hope that we continue to see in return some real progress on this issue.

I thank all hon. Members, and congratulate the right hon. Member for East Antrim on highlighting the issue. With your permission, Dr Huq, I will give the rest of the available time to the Minister.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

We are going to leave a couple of minutes at the end for the Member in charge to conclude.

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), for giving me ample time to respond to the many issues that have been raised. He may be keen to take a phone call as a result of the shadow Cabinet reshuffle; maybe there is a promotion or relegation in the offing. I know that he has been keenly checking his messages all afternoon.

[Andrew Griffith]

You’re stuck with me.

[Justin Madders]

He is staying in place.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on securing this debate. He referred to not having a great deal of luck in applying for debates; perhaps he is right that he has not faced as much competition because this is the last day before recess. But he is also right that this is an important issue. Given the number of Members here today, there are clearly things that people wished to raise. I want to address as many of the points as I can in the time that I have. If I do not get around to all of them, I will ensure that the relevant Minister responds.

I start by stating the current position. In January, we announced that we were reviewing the UK internal market, a move that would be quicker and broader than was required in statute. We published a public consultation on the operation of the UK Internal Market Act 2020, and at the outset of the consultation the Government made it clear that they would not repeal any part of the Act, as it contains important provisions relating to the Windsor framework and the unfettered access of qualifying Northern Ireland goods to Great Britain. It is important that we have that in the back of our minds when debating these issues.

Upholding Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market was a key manifesto commitment, and we are determined to fulfil it. At the time, the Government stated that they were not minded to weaken the protections offered by the market access principles in the Act. Those protections facilitate the free movement of goods, provision of services and recognition of professional qualifications, resulting in real benefits for businesses and people across the whole of the UK.

We recognise, however, the concerns—and hear them again today—about how the UK internal market has been operating in practice, particularly for businesses. The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander), made a written ministerial statement to the House last week with the Government’s response to the review and the public consultation. The review made clear that businesses across all sectors strongly support the UK Internal Market Act’s market access principles to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

May I start by paying tribute to Norman Tebbit? He was a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and a great reformer who did a great deal to unleash growth in this country.

The only thing growing under this Government are the unemployment queues. Today, the Office for National Statistics revealed that the number of payrolled employees has fallen by 180,000 over the last year and 40,000 in the last month alone. Unemployment has been higher in every month since the Chancellor has been in office. In the last hour, we have heard news of another 500 job losses at Jaguar Land Rover. This is a great country with great people. When the Secretary of State talks to businesses, what reason do they give to him for unemployment rising?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

It is always nice to hear from the shadow Secretary of State. First, as he knows, the Office for National Statistics workforce survey shows that the overall number of jobs is higher after a year of this Government than it would have been if the Conservatives had remained in government—there are 380,000 additional jobs. He mentioned payroll jobs. Of course, they are important; they are one key factor, as is wages, which, as he knows, have risen faster in the first 10 months of this Government than they did in the first 10 years of the previous Government. Our productivity figures have also risen, and of course, we closely monitor the impacts of technology.

The shadow Secretary of State asked what businesses say to me. They say that this Government have brought stability after the mini-Budget disaster, which he was a key part of. They say that we have brought openness to the world and are navigating a difficult trading environment better than anyone else, and they recognise that our pro-business, pro-growth measures are delivering. There was nothing like the list I just gave of problems after 14 years of the previous Government.

[Andrew Griffith]

That answer was complacent and unsympathetic. It is the most vulnerable—those looking for their first shot, their first chance—who pay the price of unemployment.

Let us start again. Last night in the other place, the unemployment Bill was improved with sensible amendments to probation periods, a definition of seasonal workers that protects hospitality and agriculture, and provision for a consultation about the impact on the smallest businesses. Those measures have been proposed by employers, and by independent business groups such as the Confederation of British Industry, Make UK and the Federation of Small Businesses, who say that the Bill in its current form is deeply damaging. If the Secretary of State will not shelve the Bill entirely, will he at least commit to accepting those entirely reasonable amendments?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The shadow Secretary of State talks about vulnerable people. Which Government left one in eight young people not in education, employment or training, while net immigration hit 1 million? It was absolutely shameful, and we will take no lessons from Conservative Members. He talks about tackling barriers; who gave us the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world? The Conservative party. Who is dealing with that? Who has put millions into skills and training, finance, and the tools that local areas need? Those are the things that businesses want.

The shadow Secretary of State also talks about the Employment Rights Bill. I regret the Conservatives’ knee-jerk ideological opposition to it; they could have been pragmatic. The Bill was a manifesto commitment, and we will deliver our manifesto commitments in full. There are issues on which we have to get the balance right, such as probation periods and the future monitoring of zero-hours contracts, and the commitment is of course real. Pragmatic engagement would have been a more constructive way forward than this knee-jerk ideological opposition.

Hospitality Sector

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. As we have heard, the hospitality sector forms a cornerstone of not only our economy, but our society and community. In my beautiful Arundel and South Downs constituency—I beg to differ with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney)—it binds together communities, as we come together in cafés, pubs, restaurants, hotels and even garden centres.

As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), hospitality plays a disproportionate role in providing the next generation with their first step on the career ladder, offering rewarding employment and what has always been a fair and balanced offering of flexible work. It gives many people their second chance in life, as well as many people a chance to supplement their retirement.

The industry employees 3.5 million people, with the vast majority of those jobs in small and medium-sized businesses that any Government should be on the side of, and we heard wonderful examples of that from my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool). My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) discussed its impact on employment and the flexible nature of the working, and he gave his insights about the higher job satisfaction, which we also heard from others.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate, and how it will no doubt obfuscate around the frankly hostile environment that this Government have created for the hospitality industry. Colleagues should listen attentively, because what it does not mention will be as revealing as that which it does. Last summer—in fact, this time last year—prospective Labour MPs toured their constituencies and the airwaves, and they promised anyone who would listen that they would not raise taxes. Just a few short months later, the Chancellor slapped a jobs tax on every single employer across the land.

Pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels now face the £3.4 billion extra cost. It was a political choice, imposed by this Government, that has almost uniquely ravaged the hospitality industry—it was a perfect storm for the industry —particularly, as we heard from many Members, through the change in the threshold from £9,100 to £5,000 a year. Apparently, that change was made capriciously by the Treasury at the last moment, when its Chancellor once again failed to get her sums to add up.

One of the UK’s leading hospitality entrepreneurs, Luke Johnson, put it best:

“It is heartbreaking that Britain’s proud record of innovation, flexibility and business success is being thrown away thanks to that old knee-jerk Labour instinct of taxing success.”

The reality is that one third of hospitality businesses are now operating at a loss because of the Chancellor’s tax on jobs. Unemployment is already rising; in fact, it is up in every one of the nine months for which Labour has been in office. Six out of 10 hospitality businesses report that they have had to take the decision that no business owner ever wants to take. We should remember that many of these are family businesses that provide employment to the local people they live and work alongside. However, 63% say they have no alternative but to reduce the hours available for staff. Kate Nicholls, the chief executive officer of UKHospitality, 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”—

as we heard about with pubs today—

“close their doors for good.”

It is difficult to overstate the catastrophic impact that this Government are having on the hospitality industry.

Once again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire for securing this important debate, to which there have been contributions from across the House. But as some Members have said, there is another iceberg on the way that this Government and this Chancellor are steering us straight towards: the trade-union written, 1970s-inspired Employment Rights Bill. No Labour Minister has ever been able to name a real business that supports it—imagine that—and I invite this Minister perhaps to do so when he winds up. The reality is that very few employers in the hospitality sector will actually be aware of the perils facing them. They will be so focused on running their business, rather than wading through 300 pages of tightly typed Whitehall speak. It is available in the Table Office right now, should anyone feel difficulty sleeping on these hot summer nights.

The Bill, just like the Chancellor’s tax measures, disproportionately impacts on the hospitality industry. It will remove the valued freedom that employers and employees have to adjust their hours flexibly. What sort of business do we think that will hit? It will hit seasonal businesses, and most hospitality businesses have a strong element of seasonality. This will force young people, the vulnerable and sometimes those with a chequered employment record out of employment.

Once again, it is even worse for pubs, because the Bill reserves a special measure for the fact that landlords, hotel owners and restaurant managers will be forced to act as banter bouncers, asking punters whose private conversations may conceivably cause any unknown offence to their staff to leave their premises. By the way, that is nothing to do with sexual harassment, which is dealt with in a separate clause, and is rightly already illegal. The outcome will be a £5 billion bill for business under the Government’s impact assessment and countless—literally tens of thousands—of job losses.

Let me be clear: even Tony Blair or Gordon Brown, a socialist in office, saw it as wise to give this sort of economic self-harm a wide berth. On top of that, if someone’s business is still surviving, and they have the temerity for it to be a private, family-owned business, they will face the family business death tax.

I do not want to pre-empt the Minister, who is a decent man. I suspect we will hear a little go a very long way. He will talk about the 40% business rate relief coming to the aid of hospitality, despite the reality that the Government have in practice more than doubled business rates bills for businesses in the sector, compared with the 75% relief on offer under the previous Government.

We may also hear about the 1p cut on beer duty—that old trope that Governments of all flavours, if we are being honest, like to trot out. But the reality—the hard truth—is that the average pub would have to sell an additional 850,000 pints a year for that 1p cut to offset the additional costs imposed on them by the Chancellor’s job tax. I do not necessarily believe that most of us are equal to that particular challenge.

We may hear of the Government’s unequivocal support for hospitality, but words are cheap. It is difficult to reconcile that premise with the Government’s actions this time last week, when they left this sector, which employs millions of people and keeps our communities and high streets alive, entirely missing in action from their industrial strategy.

The truth is that the Government have done nothing to support our hospitality businesses, which have been entirely let down and treated as cash cows by the Chancellor at No. 11. I think the Minister knows that, but he is a loyal man who is keen to keep his job at a time of rising unemployment, and it is probably being offered to many of his colleagues who are thinking of rebelling this afternoon. The truth is that the Government have removed incentives, laid out insurmountable burdens, and over-taxed our hospitality sector at every opportunity. It is a great regret, but I am glad that we have the chance, on behalf of the sector, to debate that this afternoon.

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

It is always a good day when we can talk about our wonderful and innovative British businesses, but, sad to say, this strategy has taken the best part of 12 months to appear. That is how long British industry has had to wait for this cut and paste industrial strategy; 158 pages mostly copied and pasted from previous sector strategies and the science and technology framework, which do nothing to alleviate the pain and turmoil that Labour has already inflicted. In those 12 months, Labour has crashed the economy—[Laughter.] Labour Members are laughing, but unemployment has been up in every one of the nine months of this Government, with hiring and investment down. I understand that this document is printed on 40% recycled paper—very much like its content.

Yet there is no respite for businesses from the decisions that have been taken. The Secretary of State talks about restoring stability, and that may well be what was written for him, but he, like me, listens to businesses, so he cannot possibly believe that. The Government have hiked taxes by £40 billion when they promised not to, and gilt rates are higher today than after the mini-Budget; they fiddled the fiscal rules and are now running out of headroom, all while setting up state investment banks in a repeat of the previous Labour Government’s private finance initiative. Higher taxes, higher energy costs and more red tape on employment—the proposals set out in this document are simply insufficient at a time when businesses need far greater measures to defend them from the minefield that Labour has left out.

There are many elements of this strategy that we do welcome. I am pleased that the Government have continued the work the former Chancellor and I undertook on access to capital, and it is good to see an emphasis on trade and international co-operation, particularly with the document’s focus on Japan and Saudi Arabia. I am glad that the Government are implementing the O’Shaughnessy reforms and turning the NHS into a global platform health data research service.

It is encouraging to see the weight given to autonomous cars, although it is curious that there is no mention of the opportunity of driverless trains. I am disappointed that the life sciences and engineering biology receive relatively modest mentions. There is a minor mention of skills reform, but there is no mention of real deregulation to our labour market and a near absence of references to small businesses, which account for the majority of businesses and employment in this country.

The big miss, however, is on energy. We welcomed the Prime Minister’s epiphany this weekend when he announced he would slash green levies on a certain number of businesses. However, the industrial strategy still talks about accelerating to net zero at a time when British business needs the opposite. It is simply mad. Rather than the Business and Trade Secretary—sitting next to the Energy Secretary on the Front Bench—addressing the root causes of high energy costs, this Government seem intent on adding to the web of complexity of taxes, levies and subsidies. There is nothing in the strategy about reopening the North sea—the energy reserves that lie under our own secure feet. It even compounds the problem by imposing further self-harm through a carbon border adjustment mechanism—a tariff by another name—which will cost businesses and consumers in this country dear.

How can anyone outside this postcode running a business believe that Labour intends to cut the regulatory burden when it has set up new quangos at the rate of one every two weeks, including in the Business Secretary’s own Department? How can anyone outside Whitehall looking at the regulations take seriously the commitments in this document, when the Secretary of State’s own Department is guiding through the House 300 pages of trade union-written employment law, which will force employers to cut hiring and jobs?

I will conclude with a number of questions. If the Secretary of State cannot answer today, perhaps he would be so kind as to write with a reply. The small business strategy was promised for the spring, but the summer solstice is now behind us. Can he tell the millions of businesses when it is coming?

There are a number of live situations that the Secretary of State will be aware of, including the bioethanol plan in Saltend Chemicals Park in Hull, Syngenta moving its precision wheat breeding programme to France, and the Government equivocating over supporting the stake in the vital low Earth orbit satellite operator OneWeb. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is actions, not words, that count, and will he impress that on his Treasury colleagues?

Finally, the strategy does talk about reducing the number of regulators, which is wholly welcome, as we need a marked cull in the number of regulators and their scope and size. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing an annual statement showing the progress his Government are making on that, and will he start today by agreeing not to create any new ones?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

So fuelled by optimism am I today that even the shadow Secretary of State cannot bring me down. Having been in opposition for some time, I can say that, “This document is all rubbish and I welcome most of it,” is quite an exciting take on a response. The Conservative party has managed to oppose almost everything that the Government have done in their first year, including, in my Department, the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which the previous Government were planning to introduce had they remained in office, and the India trade deal, which they were negotiating but could not get across the line, so I welcome the small bits of positivity in his response.

Everyone across the House should support the strategy. It is based on things that will not be secrets to hon. Members who spend time with businesses on constituency Fridays and at weekends. They will be told about skills, energy, access to finance and how local areas should have the powers to address the needs in their local economies. I hope that the shadow Secretary of State would recognise, in good spirit, that many of the problems that need to be addressed grew under the Conservative Government. For example, the fact that energy bills became so uncompetitive was a result of actions and decisions of the Conservative Government. We are fixing that problem, in order to make a difference.

On skills, one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, while net immigration is at 1 million. That is not a policy success. It needed to be addressed. We needed to address, too, the failures on the funding of courses such as engineering. That was such an obvious need for our sectors. Finance is one of the longest-running problems; we are all familiar with it.

The shadow Secretary of State asked a number of questions, and I am more than happy to answer them. On small businesses, if he reads more of the detail when he has a bit more time, he will see that small and medium-sized enterprises play a vital role in the creative industries and defence sector plans. To anyone who asks, “What’s the message to businesses that are not in sectors covered by the industrial strategy?” I say that they will benefit from people having good jobs and high incomes. Whether they are in hospitality, retail or leisure, they will see a direct benefit from the strategy. The small business plan will come out in July, and it will deal with issues such as late payment, business support and access to the kinds of tools—rental auctions and so forth—that will make a difference on the high street.

The shadow Secretary of State attacked net zero. That is a mistake. Why would we turn our back on billions of pounds of investment and all the benefits it could bring? In particular, becoming a country that is not so reliant on volatile foreign gas prices is an obvious thing that we would not want to turn our back on. He seemed to announce a new Conservative position of opposing CBAMs, which deal with carbon leakage and create a level playing field. I am surprised by that, because the previous Conservative Government were strong advocates of them.

On the bioethanol industry, talks continue with the two plants most directly affected. Of course, they were in a challenging position before the US trade deal; the deal was not in itself the cause of that. They were losing money. If I intervene, I must have a route to profitability, and that is the basis of those conversations. We are committed to precision breeding. Businesses that moved to France would find a more restrictive environment there because of EU regulation, so I would not recommend that.

On OneWeb, there are some specific issues, about which I would be more than happy to talk to the shadow Secretary of State. On regulation, we have already taken decisive action, for example with a strategic steer to the Competition and Markets Authority, which has been warmly welcomed by businesspeople. They ask me for more of that, and that is exactly what we intend to bring forward.

Finally, let me say, because I know that this is so important to colleagues, that I am more than happy to offer a briefing to any Front-Bench spokesperson or group of colleagues across the House. There is so much in the strategy that will make a difference and so much detail worth sharing, and I would be more than happy to do so with colleagues. Let us all get behind the strategy and get behind British industry.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Let me place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) and for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for their work in holding the Government to account on this Bill.

On Second Reading, I said that the Bill was the archetype of everything that is sometimes wrong with Westminster, but now, after months of debate in both Houses, I fear that it is even worse. In 2017, the now Prime Minister said that his party would respect the outcome of the referendum in which 17 million people voted to leave the European Union. Britain has now fallen victim to Labour’s EU surrender summit, giving up our fishing rights and our ability to make our own laws. I am happy to concede that this is no longer a Trojan horse of a surrender Bill, because it is now in plain sight. It is absurd that any Government would give up the power to shape our own regulations and meet the needs of our own consumers, electors and businesses. Those economies that will succeed in the future are those that are agile, that can adjust dynamically to events and that can tailor their own rulebook to their own particular needs.

While this Government’s track record is frankly disastrous, I still give them the benefit of the doubt when they say they wish for growth, but for the benefit of Labour Members—who I rather suspect have not read the detail of this Bill; they have been whipped into supporting it—let me spell out what it does. The dynamic alignment clauses in the Bill would mean that every time the EU tweaked its standards—shaped by the interests of 27 other states with their own different mix of businesses, often in competition with ours—Britain would have to follow suit. There would be no more bespoke trade deals around the world, as the Prime Minister and his team would be lame-duck negotiators, with the EU President holding the real strings. The Government boast of three trade deals in three weeks, but that is a hollow boast when not a single one is backed up by any detail. The Trade Secretary, who is noticeably absent today, is no doubt trying to make true what his Prime Minister has already announced. The Paymaster General confirmed to me in a written answer this afternoon that British businesses, exporters, travellers and tourists will not benefit from e-gates, as we were promised. Yet the Government, in all their naivety, are legislating to hand control of our product regulations back to Brussels.

At every stage of scrutiny, this Bill has been found wanting. The mild-mannered Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place delivered an uncharacteristically scathing rebuke, branding it a skeleton Bill that grotesquely shifts legislative power from Parliament to Ministers. It shackles British businesses, already bleeding out, to EU standards, stifling innovation. It is a solution in search of a problem, and under the Bill—under the measures being brought forward by the Government today—there is no room for the sort of robust scrutiny that we were sent here by our constituents to do, and no accountability. It is all in the hands of Ministers who keep breaking their promises.

Let us be clear: Labour’s pattern of broken promises does not just set Britain back; it erodes the trust that people have in politics. This House has a duty to restore faith in our democracy, to protect our hard-fought sovereignty and to say no to the overreach of blank-cheque ministerial powers, such as those in the Bill. This House must tonight reject the Bill, as we will seek to do, to stop the Government from forsaking Britain’s ability to carve and determine its own future.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?

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.