High Street Businesses: Government Support

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, and to make common cause with so many hon. Members. Our passion for our high streets—something we share, as proud representatives of our constituents—has come through in all the contributions to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for sharing that with us. I speak on behalf of my own wonderful high streets in Midhurst, Storrington, Arundel, Steyning, Petworth, Pulborough and Henfield —we are so lucky to have them, Ms Lewell. I hope that you will come and visit them, and the Minister always has an invitation to see the wonderful enterprises in my constituency.

Here I fear that the consensus may break down a little, but I hope that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage and his colleagues will join me in condemning the decision of my local Lib Dem district councils to increase parking charges and bleed the life out of our high streets—an unwarranted headwind, transferring economic life into the coffers of the town halls. I invite the hon. Member to join me in seeking to reverse that unwarranted decision.

The Minister is a good man, and many of these measures were not of his making, but I fear that what we are seeing is the Government’s fundamental—albeit perhaps unintentional—misunderstanding of business: what it is to combine so many different factors of production, to take risks and to try to give back, through economic activity, to our communities. We heard many examples of that today. We heard about the difficulty for employers of making ends meet with the unwarranted increase in national insurance—not just the rate but, in particular, the threshold. Anyone who really understood the granularity of business, and the number and mix of part-time employees who were previously outwith the national insurance net, would never have made the decision to reduce the threshold from £9,100 to £5,000, encompassing at a stroke hundreds and thousands more employees. What do businesses do when faced with the anaemic top-line growth in the economy and the pressure on consumer household spending? They have to sit down on a Sunday afternoon and work through the shifts, trying to pare back hours and work out which employees they may let go.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) the challenges of making the business rates calculation add up. I accept that this challenging problem did not start at the last election—I am very ecumenical in that sense; it has been creeping up on us for a long time—but the first and best advice that I got was that when you are in a bit of a hole, you should stop digging. Rather than the permanently lower business rates that we were promised and that businesses relied on—many placed their votes accordingly —we have got permanently higher business rates. That started with a swingeing increase. The Government, under pressure from other parties represented in this House, listened—eventually—and have mitigated that increase through some welcome measures in the short term, but they have done nothing to provide the long-term relief that for many would mean they had a viable future as a business.

I know that the Minister will have been given some brilliant lines to read out this afternoon, but I ask him, in all seriousness, to hear the will of the House on the perennial challenge of business rates, perhaps work on a cross-party basis and see what we can do over time to lance this very difficult boil. This is part of an overall picture of spending first and taxing second—certainly, that is the view of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, from his description of meetings with so many of his colleagues.

The challenge is that we are just not seeing any top-line growth, any confidence in the economy, anything to make people think that it is a good idea to go and start an enterprise, to hire people, to take some risk in our high streets. We all want that for our communities. We want our high streets full of lively, independent, diverse shops catering to the needs of local people, not merely those catering to the lowest common denominator —vape shops—or, meritorious though they are, charity shops in perhaps too great an abundance.

There is a real desire to work on the future of the high street, because we all care so much about it. We need the employment opportunities for our young people. We have heard about the challenges for the hospitality sector. VAT is of course one potential relief, but what people are telling me is, “Just do something. Stop piling more and more taxes and levies”—packaging taxes, bed taxes—“on us. Let’s have a little bit of a moratorium.” My party’s fully costed plan would go much further by taking 250,000 small businesses out of business rates entirely. I know that the Minister will disagree, but I am afraid that we would go back to the very settled status of employment law that was good enough for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. It persisted for many years and gave many of our young people the opportunity to get their first foot on the ladder, particularly with starter jobs. Indeed, some hon. Members have spoken today about their own first experiences working in hospitality and retail.

I will leave it there, but I am very keen to hear from the Minister what new hope he can inject into our souls and hearts—we want to take it back to our high streets to give people good cheer, so that they are no longer just surviving, but thriving. I leave the final word to the Prime Minister’s Chief Secretary, a man infamous for his self-confidence and, I am told, more than a little ambition. Upon discovering that the nation’s growth plans are in the hands of the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), he said:

“It doesn’t fill you with confidence.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

First, I congratulate the Government on securing the Gulf Co-operation Council deal. Success has many authors, and Members on both sides of the House have been part of these negotiations as Ministers, but a win is a win. These are—[Interruption.] These are our historical friends and allies, and this is part of a growth agenda.

Summer is approaching and young people are graduating. The Office for National Statistics reported this week that, as a direct result of this Government’s choices, one in six young people is looking for a job, but cannot find one. Sectors like retail and hospitality are shedding jobs by the thousands. Will the Secretary of State finally accept that, well-intentioned or otherwise, the Government have got it wrong?

[Peter Kyle]

It speaks for itself when the Opposition try to take credit for the Government’s achievements. It shows just how good this Government actually are. However, I am grateful for the hon. Member’s warm words about the GCC deal. A lot of work went into it, but of course when we came into office, we were practically on the starting line; we were so close to it at that moment.

I will be really up front about youth unemployment. This issue faces most communities in our country, and we should have much more cross-party support on it. In the interests of offering an olive branch, let me say that as someone who had a challenging pathway through education into employment, I recognise the issue. However, the Opposition must admit that, in the three years before they left office, youth unemployment went up by 250,000. Yes, we will work together, but it does—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Secretary of State, my words apply to you as well as to Back Benchers, because I am trying to help your Back Benchers get their questions in. We will now hear a very quick question from the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I hope he would agree, cross-party, with the Tony Blair Institute, which has said that the UK must restore “dynamism” to its labour market, rather than imposing restrictions such as the Employment Rights Act 2025. Could the Secretary of State, who is a good man, at least promise me that, if he gets to serve as Chancellor in a Government led by his friend, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), he will use that chance to change the Government’s approach?

[Peter Kyle]

Dynamism is increasing in our economy, and that is why we have so much growth—growth that the Conservatives failed to deliver in their 14 years. As for young people, we have the youth guarantee, which includes a six-month funded programme placement that provides a rich environment for kids who were put out of work—a lot of the time, by the Conservatives when they were in government. It gets kids back into work, and does so sustainably.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill because it believes that politicians should not be running businesses; because expropriating businesses sets a precedent that will deter inward investment into other UK businesses; because the Bill exposes taxpayers to unlimited liabilities; because the powers that the Bill confers on Ministers are far wider in scope than would be required for its stated purpose; and because it fails to contain any measures that would address the issues which are currently making domestic production of steel unprofitable such as higher employment costs and policies in pursuit of net zero, such as carbon taxes and associated regulations and levies.”

Conservatives will never be neutral about the deindustrialisation of our country, but we do not believe that politicians or Whitehall bureaucrats should run businesses. Instead, we need a Government who do fewer things better, such as defending our nation, securing energy supplies and restoring the nation’s finances. We believe in British steelmaking and the importance of sovereign capabilities—not just steelworks, but the steel supply chain, critical minerals and many defence- related technologies—but that is not what this Bill does. This Bill is the Government’s attempt to break out of a mess we warned one year ago they were getting themselves into, and it fails even in the Government’s own terms. It does not keep the blast furnaces open and it does not guarantee that military needs can be met domestically.

Let us be clear what we are doing today. We are being asked to nationalise British Steel, and put the British taxpayer permanently on the hook for a business that this Government had every chance to keep in private hands, but chose not to. They ignored plans to open electric arc furnaces on Teesside, and chose to let the situation deteriorate until the only option left was the one that suited their ideology. The Prime Minister went kowtowing to China, gave it an embassy spy base and, instead of a deal on Jingye, came back with a box of fortune cookies with only a bill for the taxpayer to be found inside.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I just wish to seek some clarity from the hon. Gentleman. Is the Conservatives’ position that they would prefer British Steel in the hands of the Chinese than the British?

[Andrew Griffith]

That was a waste of an intervention. If the hon. Member lets me continue, I will explain exactly what the Conservative plan is for British Steel, and it is a better plan and a more sustainable plan than we have heard from the Secretary of State today. This Government did not inherit—

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

As the shadow Minister was unable to respond to the previous intervention, would he like to explain why the Conservative Government sold British Steel to the Chinese in 2019 against my specific advice?

[Andrew Griffith]

When it suits the hon. Gentleman, he claims to be a fan of the late Margaret Thatcher, but he seems to have forgotten that most of her time in office was spent untangling the mess of Labour’s past nationalisations. Unlike him, she did not bend with the wind or find herself in the same Lobby as a Government who have hiked taxes to record highs, driven wealth offshore and drowned business in red tape.

Members would like to know what our plan is, and our plan is to address the cause, not the symptoms. [Interruption.] Labour Members would do well to listen to this, and we might have more of a steel industry left if they do. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel without an energy policy for industry. Britain has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, and every choice the Government are making has pushed those prices further up. This week, they voted against new licences in the North sea, choosing to import from Norway gas that could be drilled here, at a cost of 200,000 jobs and £12 billion in tax revenue.

The Secretary of State knows this and his Back Benchers know this, but the Prime Minister is too weak to stand up to his windmill-fetishist Energy Secretary. We have offered an alternative. Our cheap plan would slash energy prices and improve energy security. Why would the Government not want that? If they were genuinely interested in securing the future of steelmaking, as well as those of many other industries, they could have come here today and adopted that plan. Instead, this Bill is an indictment—

[Mr Brash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will happily give way, as long as the hon. Member is going to talk about our cheap energy plan.

[Mr Brash]

I have heard that the hon. Gentleman thinks energy prices should come down, and we do not disagree on that, but he still has not answered my question. Does he think British Steel should remain foreign-owned—yes or no?

[Andrew Griffith]

The only way we are going to have a sustainable steelmaking industry in this country, and the same applies to the manufacturing sector and our defence supply chain, is lower energy costs. That is the only sustainable way.

[Mr Brash]

Yes or no?

[Andrew Griffith]

We have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. The Government do not have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. Ministers themselves have admitted that the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe will close. They are reverting to a plan that already exists.

The Bill is an indictment of this Government’s modus operandi—a spray and pray Government who write blank cheques from the taxpayer and call that a strategy. We are doomed to relearn the hard lessons of the 1970s: if it moves, tax the hell out of it; when it stops moving, subsidise it. It was socialist idol Tony Benn who wanted to nationalise everything that moved, and one result that the Government may care to look at was the state-owned Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering company, which simultaneously made car radiators and orange juice. When the Government last ran British Steel in the late 1970s, the company’s losses hit £1.3 billion a year. Since Labour’s botched nationalisation of just a year ago, it has already spent £500 million of taxpayers’ money—£1.3 million a day.

Where is the Government’s published, costed and scrutinised plan for what nationalised British Steel will look like in five years’ time, or even in one year’s time? I have read the Bill and there is not one. There is no provision for a proper impact assessment before the sweeping powers are used. There is no acknowledgment of the monumental decommissioning liabilities—in the billions—that will sit on the Treasury’s balance sheet. There is a sunset clause, but it can be extended indefinitely by Ministers—a sunset where the sun never sets.

The House deserves better than this. We deserve a Bill with a proper thought-through plan. The Government have turned a negotiation into a crisis, a crisis into an emergency and an emergency into this nationalisation. We know that Ministers, however well-meaning, will be unable to resist using their power to tilt the playing field in favour of steel businesses that they themselves own: no longer the referee, they will be on the pitch wearing one of the teams’ shirts. There is no better example of that than their plans on steel tariffs.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

What does the shadow Minister make of tilting the balance in favour of communities in Redcar and across Teesside, when his Government sat on their hands and saw the blast furnace go to the wall? Is that his definition of sustainability—to let those businesses and communities collapse?

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Member would be better addressing that question to his own Ministers, who, notwithstanding the nationalisation, acknowledged that the blast furnaces will cease—they will go dark and close on this Government’s watch. The Bill does not protect blast furnaces and he should invite the Minister, when he winds up, to talk about the future there. There was a plan to invest in British Steel in Redcar to secure those jobs, but the Government pulled the chain—

[Andy McDonald]

What are you talking about?

[Andrew Griffith]

There was absolutely a plan before the election to open arc furnaces in Redcar—that was absolutely case—and to move Scunthorpe operations to Redcar.

I asked the Secretary of State to address the issue of tariffs. There is no better example of the folly of these plans—

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

No, I am going to make some progress on tariffs. A number of hon. Members have raised this very important issue, shedding light on the way that the Government are tilting the playing field on tariffs. Under this Government, we have already seen a flurry of Trump-style tariffs—doubling steel tariffs and halving quotas—that elevate the interests of one firm over the automotive, aerospace, advanced manufacturing and defence sectors. Firms involved in the supply chains of AUKUS and Tempest are now looking at shifting tooling and jobs to other countries, instead of manufacturing components here.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; he is making an excellent speech. Specifically on tariffs, does he agree that the approach is illogical? Reducing quotas will decrease the supply, and increasing the tariffs will increase the cost. I listened to the Secretary of State very closely. He talked about getting domestic production here, but by the time that happens, most of the businesses will have gone to the wall. Does my hon. Friend agree that the approach is illogical?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point, and that point has been made by other hon. Members and across the manufacturing industry. We are at risk of losing critical parts of our defence, aerospace and automotive supply chains.

[Kit Malthouse]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Bill appears to be an attempt at providing a simple solution for one industry, we need to be careful what we wish for? A huge amount of steel is used in the car industry—I do not know if Members have seen the number of Chinese cars appearing on our streets. If we have elevated and protected steel markets in the UK, at a time when we have a massive global oversupply of steel, we will not stand a chance of competing with the finished goods that use all that cheap oversupply. We will end up subsidising the car industry like we did back in the 1970s. That would have a particular impact in my constituency, where firms such as Stannah Stairlifts use steel in advanced manufacturing, and face having no choice but to consider offshoring their production.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) have made exactly the right point: we need a more thoughtful approach.

I have written to the Secretary of State, as have many of my colleagues, asking that the tariffs are delayed for six months while the Department does more work; that the Government investigate more specialist grades of steel; that within the broader tariff buckets, they look again at the steel alloys used in the defence, aerospace and automotive sectors that are simply not made here today, because there are perhaps unintended consequences of the tariffs; that they be more forensic in their approach; and that they bring forward the measures the Conservatives have talked about on industrial energy costs, which are damaging not just the steel industry but many other industries’ and our basis on which to compete.

There is no point securing what the Secretary of State thinks is in the national interest for one steel manufacturer in a particular location if the foreseeable consequence, unintended or otherwise, is to ship offshore large parts of our high-end automotive manufacturing, engineering and defence industries, so that they are lost forever and conducted in other countries. I have raised that serious point with the Minister, and I ask him to address it.

[Luke Myer]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will give way if it is about this particular point.

[Luke Myer]

I am afraid that I want to give the hon. Member another chance to answer the question from my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), which was not about the prospect of a future EAF on Teesside—a prospect that I support but that the Leader of the Opposition confirmed from the Dispatch Box was not as advanced as the hon. Member claims. My hon. Friend’s question was about the crash closure of the blast furnace at Redcar in 2015, which ripped 3,000 jobs out of our region. What message does the hon. Member have for the people of Redcar, whose Government he was in when that happened?

[Andrew Griffith]

I am afraid that the hon. Member ought to look again at the calendar, because I was not only not in Government but not in this House—I was getting on in business trying to help grow the British economy. When the same issue arose in Port Talbot, it was the previous Government—indeed, my right hon. Friend who is now the Leader of the Opposition—who took action and were willing to back the private sector owner to secure the future of steelmaking in Wales. That was what we did in Government.

We are talking about the issue of tariffs because it is intrinsically related to the Government and the taxpayer taking ownership of one participant in a complex industry supply chain. I know that on the Government Benches, some of the truths that we share today may not be immediately popular, but past Governments failed because they were happy to do what was popular in the moment, without looking at the long-term consequences. The truth is that we should not be nationalising British Steel, and certainly not with the Bill in this form—my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East made the point about the sweeping nature of the clauses, whatever we think about the Secretary of State’s intentions.

We have demonstrated in the past, and we will again, that there are other options, such as partnering with the private sector and negotiating a better deal. The Conservatives would fix the cause, not the symptoms; we would save steelmaking in this country not through state quick fixes, but by fixing the state itself. We would not pit industries against each other, as Labour is now doing, and we would not sit idly by for a rerun of the 1970s horror show that Labour made Britain sit through the last time around.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With a six-minute time limit, I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

As I was preparing for today’s debate, it struck me that 60 years ago this summer, this House was debating steel nationalisation and the England team went on to win the world cup. We are back here discussing steel nationalisation again, so I have high hopes for the summer.

Sometimes it is informative to learn from the past. Going back to the steel nationalisation of 1966, the Minister of Power opened the debate and said that

“there is no manufacturing industry of such basic importance to the British economy.”—[Official Report, 25 July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1224.]

Of course, he was right then, and it is true now. However, the steel industry is so good that we have not nationalised it twice; we have nationalised it thrice, because the steel industry was also partly nationalised in 1948. The Minister of Supply said:

“Without steel the life of Britain would collapse.”—[Official Report, 15 November 1948; Vol. 458, c. 53.]

That is absolutely true, as we have heard from Members of the House today.

As the Minister for Industry, part of my mission is to increase the productive capacity of our industry. What we have seen in the steel industry, particularly during 14 years of the Tories, is productive decline. They presided over the loss of great steel plants and a reduction in the productive capacity of those steel plants. The thing is, the decline in market share—from 80% to 30%—was not inevitable. It was a choice born out of inaction and out of a lack of industrial policy.

The reason that this Bill is so important is exactly the same as the reason it was important in 1966: there has been a great technological shift in the industry. Back then, it was continuous casting; now, it is electric arc furnaces. The industry has been de-capitalised by years of under-investment, and it needs to be re-capitalised. Productivity fell off a cliff under the previous Government. It fell repeatedly following the closure of the Redcar blast furnace, and productivity must be improved. These are not the words of someone who is wedded to a socialist principle of nationalisation. They are the words of someone who has spent his life in the steel industry, who ran a business in the steel industry, and who is dedicated to improving productivity in our industry.

I heard the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), when he opened the debate, and I was quite disappointed. He and I met earlier this week, and my colleagues sitting behind me might be surprised to learn that he was thoughtful and probing in the questions that he asked me. He made some really interesting points, and we had a good discussion. I thought about his points afterwards, and I found it really interesting that he had thought about the things that we will have to bear in mind when we pass this legislation. But what has he done? He has fallen into the Conservatives’ usual trap of presenting this as an ideological debate, instead of a debate about the function of an industry that is vital to this country. That is how they have prosecuted this debate.

I learned something when I was working in the industry. Two years ago, I was running a business in the steel industry. Twenty years ago, I was working at the Scunthorpe steelworks. More than 30 years ago—the House will not believe it—I left school and got a job in the steel industry. There were a lot of changes over that time. Sometimes I stayed in the same job, but the company and the badge on my hard hat changed. When it changed from British Steel to Corus, that was a big blow to how people felt about it, but I will tell the House one thing that I recognised: ownership matters, and it makes a difference. Strategy matters, and it matters where the head office of a business is. People care about the area where they work, and those things are important. The workers care, communities care and we care, but the Conservatives do not care—that is quite clear to me.

[Andrew Griffith]

I will be very brief. I thank the Minister for his remarks. One ideological difference he has not mentioned once is the huge gulf between those on our side and his party on energy, and the Government are not going to have a sustainable steel industry due to energy.

[Chris McDonald]

Yes, the hon. Member is right. There is a gulf there: the Conservatives were in favour of some of the highest industrial energy prices in the world. We have delivered an increase in the supercharger benefit from 60% to 90% and introduced the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Through our investments in chemicals, ceramics and, of course, steel, we are supporting British industry with its operating costs on energy and its capital costs to improve its productivity as well.

In steel communities, they are proud people. They are people who can stand on their own two feet, and they want to; they do not want subsidies. They have pride and they have dignity in their work, and when I went to the Corby steelworks recently, I saw the sacrifice of individuals and communities with their hard and dangerous labour.

Business and Trade

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Written Corrections

[Chris Bryant]

Of course there are specific things about the Scottish economy that we want to drive forward. For instance, 54% of Scottish goods exports go into the European Union.

[Andrew Griffith]

The Government do not create jobs; business does. With unemployment rising, this is the last chance to ask the Secretary of State a question ahead of the start of April when a tsunami of business rate rises will hit. Shops and restaurants will see a 50% increase on average and the business rates of hotels will double. He and I both represent wonderful Sussex constituencies full of hospitality, high street and tourism businesses, but young people need those jobs. For their sake and for others, will he finally postpone his business rate rise?

[Peter Kyle]

I enjoy these exchanges with the shadow Secretary of State. I note that Reform’s self-styled shadow Secretary of State—or, as I call him, the shadowy Secretary of State—is not in his place, despite being just next door in the Tea Room a few minutes ago. I think that speaks volumes.

The shadow Secretary of State knows that the private sector has created 380,000 jobs under this Government. We will continue to grow the economy and the number of people in work, and make sure that people benefit from all the rights we are delivering, which are pro-business and pro-worker. He spent 14 years letting down Britain. Now he has spent 18 months talking it down.

[Official Report, 12 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 489-490.]

Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle):

Single Status of Worker

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) on securing this important debate. I regret that he himself was a victim of unemployment, cut down in his prime by a capricious boss, although I have greatly enjoyed working with the current Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to try to do what we all seek to do: improve the employment lot of our fellow citizens.

Single worker status is not a minor legal tidy-up; it would be a fundamental restructuring of the labour market—the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough mentioned that in his opening remarks. For that reason, the Conservatives believe that we should proceed cautiously. We cannot have it both ways. This Government cannot deliver a once-in-a-generation change to workers’ rights—330 pages of new legislation that has caused a degree of indigestion in the employment market as it passes through it like an egg through a snake—and then immediately come back and say that we need to unleash even more uncertainty. The law that we pass most often in this House is the law of unintended consequences. Although we are well-meaning, it behoves us all to have regard to the ever-increasing proportion of our young people who are unemployed and unable to find work, in part no doubt due to the additional regulatory burden.

Although the Conservative party does not, of course, oppose a consultation on this subject—if that was a commitment given by the Government it is in the interests of good faith and democracy that they proceed to have such a consultation—we would nevertheless be extremely cautious about rushing too quickly to legislate. In the interests of time and productivity, I will leave my remarks there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

The Government do not create jobs; business does. With unemployment rising, this is the last chance to ask the Secretary of State a question ahead of the start of April when a tsunami of business rate rises will hit. Shops and restaurants will see a 50% increase on average and the business rates of hotels will double. He and I both represent wonderful Sussex constituencies full of hospitality, high street and tourism businesses, but young people need those jobs. For their sake and for others, will he finally postpone his business rate rise?

[Peter Kyle]

I enjoy these exchanges with the shadow Secretary of State. I note that Reform’s self-styled shadow Secretary of State—or, as I call him, the shadowy Secretary of State—is not in his place, despite being just next door in the Tea Room a few minutes ago. I think that speaks volumes.

The shadow Secretary of State knows that the private sector has created 380,000 jobs under this Government. We will continue to grow the economy and the number of people in work, and make sure that people benefit from all the rights we are delivering, which are pro-business and pro-worker. He spent 14 years letting down Britain. Now he has spent 18 months talking it down.

[Andrew Griffith]

The Secretary of State forgets that I have not even been here for 14 years. Some days it feels like that, but I can assure him that it is not the case. There was no answer to that question, so let me try another. Does he agree that there is something pretty badly wrong with employment law in this country when Peter Mandelson, the friend of a convicted paedophile and leaker of classified Government documents, walks away with a £75,000 pay-off? The permanent secretary thinks that is good value for money. Will the Secretary of State review Labour’s policy of uncapping employment tribunal payouts for the highest earners?

[Peter Kyle]

As is so often the case when we have these exchanges, the shadow Secretary of State spends a lot of his time slagging off his own record in office. The Conservatives had 14 years to reform tribunal rights—they did not even touch it. They had 14 years to update workers’ rights and employment status in this country—they did not do it. The economy moved forward; they failed to move forward.

Turning to the issue of Peter Mandelson, I start by recognising that there are victims at the heart of this debate and the issues surrounding it. Those victims are in my mind today as I answer this question, and they have been all the way through. We will make sure that those victims get the justice they deserve. When it comes to the issues surrounding Peter Mandelson, there are multiple inquiries under way. Thames Valley police is leading on a criminal inquiry, and I will leave it at that.

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

I wish the Minister all the very best; she has already demonstrated that she is an effective performer on behalf of her constituents. In your time, Mr Stringer, you will have seen many Ministers pushed out to defend the indefensible, but very rarely are they caught in the action of passing a statutory instrument while, in real time, the Treasury is peddling and briefing stories of a U-turn—before the ink is even dry, before the vote has been taken and before the regulations have been agreed to.

Why is that? I think colleagues across the House, who want the best for our country and for young people, recognise that there is a growing crisis of young people being unable to access the work market. The latest figures show that 957,000 young people are not in education, employment or training. Although the Government inherited that number, they are actually making it worse—and that is before the impact of the regulations and the unemployment Bill, with which the Minister is deeply acquainted.

If we look at the overall level of young people who wish to find work—those who are formally looking for work—we see that the figure for youth unemployment is 16.1% for young people between the ages of 16 and 24, the very young people in respect of whom the above-inflation rate changes make up the largest part of the regulations before us. Why would any of us in this Committee be passive or neutral about passing measures that every economist and business group that has looked at them believes are likely to discourage firms from taking a chance on those young people?

I often find myself in common cause with the Federation of Small Businesses. It does wonderful work and represents the smallest and most fragile businesses across all our constituencies, which we all want to see succeed on our high streets and grow. They are where growth comes from. The same is true of the British Chambers of Commerce, which also has concerns about the approach the Government are taking to the wage rates for 16 to 20-year-olds—people getting their very first chance at work.

It is far less often that I find myself in common cause with the Tony Blair Institute or the Resolution Foundation, which have both, in the last 48 hours alone, reiterated their concern about the changes that the Minister advocates we vote for and pass today. This is not some Tufton Street think-tank expressing concern but the Resolution Foundation: the finishing school for aspirant young Labour Ministers—sadly, some of the talent that sits elsewhere on the Labour Benches is overlooked—and the ideological heart of the modern Labour party. The Resolution Foundation has said that this change is the wrong direction to go in and called for a moratorium.

I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members would not dream of taking out their phones under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, but if they did so right now and looked at the Financial Times, they would see that Treasury sources are briefing that the Department will be scaling this measure back. That would be part of what I think is U-turn No. 16, although it is very hard to tell—being a bear of little brain, I cannot always keep up with the number of U-turns the Government have made.

My final words come from the author of this strategy herself: the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who was my interlocutor throughout the passage of the 300-page, 1970s, red tape, job-destroying unemployment Bill. Recently, albeit after she had left Government and perhaps moved beyond the influence of those on the Treasury Bench, she spoke about the overall challenge of employment for our wider economy—the coastal, seasonal and hospitality businesses on the frontline, where so many young people, whom we are all here to represent in a non-partisan fashion, had their very first shot at a job, as I did myself. The right hon. Lady said:

“I think we’ve got to recognise, it’s not even a double whammy, it’s not even a triple whammy. I talk about the challenges on business rates, the challenges on VAT, the challenges of the minimum wage going up and the living wage going up”.

Will the Minister update us on the Chancellor’s latest thinking on this measure? What does she think about the difficult challenge for young people having their first shot at life and opportunity?

UK-India Free Trade Agreement

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted to see not just the excellent Minister for Trade, but the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I did; just bank the win. I read that the Secretary of State is being earmarked as a caretaker Prime Minister, so we are pleased that he has the time to spend with us—I think we have 10 minutes before Labour colleagues have to run upstairs.

Richard Cobden said:

“I believe that Free Trade will do more to civilise the world than all the treaties of peace that have ever been signed.”

He was the former Member of Parliament for Stockport, but he was a resident in my own West Sussex constituency, near Midhurst. His advocacy of free trade, including in this House, was always about its benefits for ordinary people: cheaper food, higher wages and fewer incentives for people to wage destructive wars that had a huge impact on ordinary people.

We Conservatives agree. Those on the Conservative Benches will always be the party of free trade, where it benefits our country. That is why it was a Conservative Government who signed new landmark trade agreements with the EU, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, and negotiated the entry of the UK to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. It is why it was the Conservative Government who laid the foundations for this free trade agreement with India. And let us be absolutely clear: this agreement is a tangible benefit of the decision the British people made in 2016 to leave the political institution of Europe; the fruit of the independent trade policy we regained, allowing the United Kingdom to negotiate once again as a sovereign state, just like Canada, Australia and Switzerland —Britain first, not Britain hoping against experience that its interests would float to the top of a soup of 27 other conflicting flavours.

Since July 2024, the Indian economy has grown by 11%. For context, the European Union has grown by 1.9% in the same period. Under this Government, the British economy has grown by just 1.6%. Exports matter, so this deal has the potential to be a key part of a growth plan for our economy. However, as any business leader will tell us, the devil is not just in the detail of such deals, but in what is not in them. I welcome the excellent report by the Business and Trade Committee, which is very thorough and an important part of the scrutiny process of this House.

We are a nation for which services represent nearly half of our global exports. I am afraid it appears that the Government have accepted a deal that is disappointingly thin on the sectors where Britain leads the world. The inclusion of services in this deal was the No. 1 priority of the previous Government’s negotiations. Instead, this deal settles for locking in existing levels of liberalisation—all good—rather than breaking new ground on services. There is an absence of provisions for mobility to allow our service industries to really integrate in India, restricting our consultants, engineers and architects from practising on the ground.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the view, which I hear a good deal in a constituency, which contains very many entrepreneurs both of Indian heritage and with connections to business in India, that this deal shows a Government who are not listening to the voice of business that has that level of experience, because they are missing out, as he is describing, on so many of the opportunities that those existing business links contain.

[Andrew Griffith]

Well, I was going to be generous to the Government and say something slightly positive. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Governments of all flavours could do an infinitely better job of listening to businesses. They are the people at the frontline in the real world. His constituents have very deep links to the economy of India and it represents a real opportunity. We support the deal, but the only tone today is one of slight regret about the missed opportunities. Of course, it is easy for a Government to get a deal if they take the deal being offered, rather than negotiating and seeking to improve that deal. Therein is some of the difference between the approach of our Government and—[Interruption.] Well, we did not get it because we were not willing to take the deal that was on the table. We were holding out and negotiating for a better deal.

Let me give the Minister an example of that—a quite surprising example, in many ways—which is the complete omission of a legal services sector deal from this agreement. The Law Society called that

“a missed opportunity for a significant breakthrough”.

The chair of the Bar Council said it was

“a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity”

missed. How ironic that a Government of lawyers, led by lawyers and stuffed full of lawyers, could not get even that aspect of the agreement across the line. The deal places a 36-month target—I hope it is a target, not an aspiration or ambition—for the conclusion of a mutual recognition of a professional qualifications agreement. That would be a great opportunity. Our services sector would welcome that, but I hope the Minister will agree with me that not to achieve that now would be to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It would be a humiliation for this Government and I hope he will address, when he winds-up, the precise plans to secure that agreement.

In a similar vein, the bilateral investment treaty that was planned to be agreed at the same time—it was in the original objectives for our deal—has also not been delivered. This is the deal that was offered, rather than the deal that could have been negotiated and improved. That leaves British investors exposed to sudden policy changes, unfair treatment and expropriation. I could, of course, be talking about the policies of this Government, but in this case I am talking about the Indian Government and the jeopardy for some significant British investors. Again, this is another missed opportunity—a deal that we support but that could have been better. I understand that the chief negotiator on the deal has confirmed that, sadly, there are no plans to return to the table to get an investment treaty across the line, but I would be very happy to stand corrected on that. Perhaps that point could be addressed in the Minister’s winding-up speech.

As we heard from the Minister, on day one the deal will grant Indian exporters of such wonders as textiles, gems and engineering goods immediate duty-free access to the British market. This is a welcome deflationary measure. It will come as good news for households as the price of goods in their weekly shops fall. Leather shoes, clothes, home furnishings and more will be cheaper under this deal. However, it is disappointing that this welcome reduction in tariffs is very far from symmetrical. Indian exporters benefit immediately, while British exporters sit in the waiting room. Scottish whisky producers, whom we have heard about, manufacturers of electric vehicles, the medical consumables industry and chemical producers will have to wait for between five and 10 years before tariffs are fully reduced.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman briefly mentions whisky. The deal is broadly welcomed by the Scottish whisky sector and I have welcomed it myself as an MP for a constituency with 49 distilleries—I am trying to visit them all. He talks about asymmetry in the deal, but is there not asymmetry in Labour Government policy, between the export deal, where they are trying to get the best possible deal for whisky, while whisky is still paying the highest levels of duty for alcohol in the UK? That is putting undue pressure on a sector that is already under pressure.

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not want to simply agree with him for the sake of it: it is not easy for Chancellors of whatever flavour to balance the books, but where we have wonderful industries such as all our drinks and spirits industries, including, if I may say so, our English wine industry, the Government must do everything they can to promote them—

[Chris Bryant]

And Welsh.

[Andrew Griffith]

And Welsh, and from other parts of this wonderful kingdom.

This Government, as the previous Government, have by and large got the importance of the wonderful Scottish whisky industry, but it is important to do anything that can be done to help. Of course, the way that one reduces taxes over time is by making tough decisions on Government spending, which would be one of the key things the Conservatives would do in order to be able to lower those taxes.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who is no longer in his place, made an important point about the protection of ceramics and related industries, such as our brick and energy-intensive chemicals industries, which are all important. A trade deal, however wonderful it may or may not be, will do nothing to help the ruinously high energy costs faced by the ceramics, brick and chemicals industries, along with so many others. This debate is not about that issue and it is not the responsibility of the Minister, but it is nevertheless an important factor; if we are going to lower barriers and frictions so that we can boost trade, increase the prosperity of our citizens and grow our economy, that absolutely must involve the full stack, including energy and what one does about employment law and regulation.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I hope I am not stretching the boundaries of the debate excessively, but I would be interested to know whether the agreement has any implications for defence exports to India and, if it does, what safeguards would be in place, given the unhealthily close relationship between India and Russia.

[Andrew Griffith]

The document produced by the Select Committee lays out the impact for defence, modest as I believe it is. I will leave it to those on the Government Front Bench to answer my right hon. Friend’s important question about security—

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Andrew Griffith]

I will happily give way to the Minister.

[Chris Bryant]

I wonder if I could talk through the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis): our export control system for any exports from the UK into any other country in the world bears in mind diversion from one country to another. That is a very important part of what we look at. The FTA does not affect that process at all.

[Andrew Griffith]

I hope that my right hon. Friend is reassured to a degree by the Minister’s response. I will move on now—you will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my speech is not as comprehensive as the work of the Select Committee.

I would be grateful if the Government could clarify a few points about the position on food and agricultural products. There are protections for sugar, chicken, eggs and pork, and that has been welcomed by producers. However, there are concerns from the British dairy industry about opening the market, which describes the deal as a one-way street: dairy is excluded from UK exports to India, yet tariffs on Indian dairy coming into the UK are removed.

[Chris Bryant]

I will try to keep up as we are going along, if that is okay. On dairy, I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making; it has been made to me before and was also made in Committee. However, I am not aware of any Indian cheese company that has been able to export into the UK, as it would still need a licence. We were very keen to secure arrangements so that we were not abandoning any of our food standards, which obviously have to be met before any export can come here.

[Andrew Griffith]

I will try to leave the Minister with a short list of questions, rather than going through each and every one as we go.

Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said—perhaps we can revert to this later—there are also concerns about the Government’s hypocrisy in respect of pesticides and animal welfare, particularly with regard to crustaceans. I do not know whether the Minister has quite the same degree of expertise in crustacean welfare and in particular prawn eyestalk ablation, which sounds more trivial here than it would to the prawn whose eyestalks are being ablated. Those concerns are particularly relevant because despite the Government publishing and vaunting their virtue in terms of animal welfare, these poor blinded prawns seem to be victims under this deal. [Interruption.] I would be happy to give way to the Minister on prawn eyestalk ablation, which is an important point; perhaps, on winding up, he could make a more general point on trade deals and how the Government will protect our animal welfare and food safety standards.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Do prawns feel pain?

[Andrew Griffith]

I am in no way qualified to answer that. However, it is the Government’s position about crustacean welfare, and they should speak to it. Just before Christmas, they published a significant proposal to change the law on that. As ever in trade, this is not a point about the underlying fundamentals, on which the Minister will be advised by Government scientists and others—I did part of his job as Minister for Exports; it is a point about the symmetry and balance of the issue.

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend will recall that during the debates about post-Brexit trade agreements, the highest possible standards of animal welfare were raised frequently across the House on a cross-party basis. The matter my hon. Friend is talking about involves swapping prawns and other types of seafood caught in British waters to the highest possible standards with creatures reared using a method that involves pulling off their eyeballs while they are alive in order for them to lay more eggs so that more prawns can be produced more cheaply. I am sure we would all agree that is cruel and would not meet the expectations set out across the House. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a powerful point that illustrates the asymmetry in this deal, which he is quite rightly seeking to criticise?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend puts the point in a better and more informed way than me. It is important, and it is for the Government to set out very clearly how they propose to maintain or create a level playing field on these matters so that producers operating here to British standards are not disadvantaged, while we all get the benefits of trade and prosperity that I spoke of.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I will defer to the Minister on prawn eyestalk ablation.

[Chris Bryant]

We are all joking about it, but this is a serious matter. The centre of the point is that whatever the tariffs may do, companies can only sell products in the UK that meet our food standards—precisely the point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). In order to ensure that is true, companies have to have a licence to sell in the UK. In addition, all Indian aquaculture products are currently subject to intensified controls with 50% consignment checks at the border. This is one of the many areas where we need to ensure that we protect our producers in this country, who are abiding by very high standards. I could apply that to all the different agriculture and foods that we are talking about, as well as to aquaculture.

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank the Minister for that intervention; I drew some comfort from it, but we will have to see the detail of the exact crustacean protections we end up with.

Finally, there is one glaring area that—even beyond the missing benefits to our important services industry—was a point of difference in the negotiations that we conducted and a reason why, when we were in government, we did not consummate that deal and why the negotiations remained outstanding. The Leader of the Opposition has been very clear about this: when she was leading the negotiations, she refused to sign this deal because of the double contributions convention. The Minister will know precisely what I mean by that.

We still have not seen the detail of that convention, and every Member of the House should be concerned. This is a very limited part of the process of scrutiny of trade deals—the rights of Parliament are perhaps not fully discharged just by the CRaG process. However, we have not even seen what the Minister referred to earlier as the HMRC agreement on this. What it means in substance—I will choose my words very precisely—is that Indian workers who come here to work will not pay a penny in British national insurance contributions, and neither will their employers.

The Government decided that they would open this deal—this two-tier tax system for India—at precisely the same time as hiking their jobs tax on every single British worker. I am happy to be rebutted or corrected, but by my calculations, under this agreement it could be up to £10,000 a year cheaper to hire a software developer on an average British salary from India than to hire someone from Britain for the same role, as employers will not be liable for those national insurance contributions. These are big numbers, and this will mean a big disadvantage to hiring an identical British worker at a time when there are 9 million people of working age not in work and when unemployment is rising—in fact, it has risen every month under this Government.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does this not suggest that when a deal was presented to the then Conservative Secretary of State for Business and Trade, she declined to sign it because she judged it not in the British interest? It does rather seem as though this Government have rolled over on this key point, which will allow Indian firms to import Indian workers in preference to British ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. The former Secretary of State—the current Leader of the Opposition—has been very clear that that was a deal breaker. It was deal or no deal, and if that had been an absolute red line, we would not have signed this deal. It is not a virtue to take any deal that is offered. As I say, the Conservatives are in favour of trade, and we value our relationship with India, but we would not have crossed that red line.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the right hon. Member agree that anybody who comes to our country and does not pay into the system through national insurance and taxes should not be allowed to benefit from services that taxpayers fund, like the NHS, education, GPs, dentists and so on? It is a two-tier system if we are treating our care workers and healthcare professionals who come here on official visas differently from imported labour.

[Andrew Griffith]

I am glad to hear agreement across the House on the desire not to have a two-tier system. We all understand the need to pay our taxes to support our public services, but it will not feel right if two people are sitting cheek by jowl, side by side in the same place of employment—a factory or other work environment—but are contributing at a very different rate to the Exchequer for the public services that we all support.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

Let me finish my point, and then there will be plenty of opportunity for interventions. I will not anticipate the Minister’s point, but there are other agreements such as this in place—I want to be full and clear about that.

There are social security agreements where contributions are both paid in and taken out. We have them with the European Union, for example. They are a long-standing feature, and they were under previous Governments. Again, to be very clear and open, we also have a limited number of agreements like this with some selected other countries, including the high-skilled economies of Japan, South Korea and Chile and, to some degree, Canada. But we do not have an agreement like this of any sort with a mostly English-speaking nation of 1.5 billion people, all of whom would potentially be better off availing themselves of this arbitrage—this two-tier system—under this deal.

Astonishingly, this part of the deal was left out of UK Government communications, so not only do we have two-tier substance in terms of the economics of the deal; we also have two-tier communications. The Indian Government boasted about this element as a significant and attractive feature of the deal, but there was not a single mention of it in the UK Government communications. That, in and of itself, should send alarm bells ringing about this two-tier tax deal.

[Chris Bryant]

I was not going to make the point that the hon. Member went on to make—that his Government signed up to lots of similar arrangements—but I was going to respond to the intervention from the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). It is important that we make it clear that under the double contributions convention, a detached Indian worker and their employer in the UK would need to pay into the Indian provident fund. On top of that, they will need to pay £3,105 in NHS surcharges, and up to £769 in visa fees. On top of that, the employer would pay an immigration skills charge of £3,000, and £525 to issue a certificate of sponsorship, so I do not think that the numbers add up in the way that the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley was suggesting.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The shadow Secretary of State has already spoken for longer than the Minister, which must be something of a record. I appreciate that there have been a lot of interventions on the shadow Secretary of State from Government Front Benchers, but perhaps he can draw his remarks to a close. The Minister will have ample time to make his points in the wind-up.

[Andrew Griffith]

I shall take good heed of those comments, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We support having a sovereign trade policy, and this is an excellent example of where it could have advantages. We are talking about one of the largest economies on the planet, which is growing approximately five times faster than the European Union. However, the deal could have been better. We are passionate about supporting our investors, lawyers, engineers, scientists and the wonderful services industry. We believe that they can compete anywhere in the world, provided that the field is level and the rules are fair, but we did not need to get a “good enough” deal across the line. British businesses needed something with a really good kick in it to get this country growing. Instead of a vindaloo of a deal, the Prime Minister came back with a bag of soggy poppadoms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard]

The National Bureau of Economic Research, in the United States.

[Andrew Griffith]

But you don’t like the States.

[Charlie Maynard]

I certainly like the States.

While we are making comparisons with Europe, I note that under the UK’s free trade agreement 92% of our exports to India will enter tariff-free. Under the EU’s deal, 96.6% of its exports can enter India tariff-free. Perhaps there is some logic, after all, to bigger trade blocs having more leverage. I wholeheartedly agree with the comments from the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) about national insurance contributions. I am also deeply concerned about that, as is my party. I also take the Minister’s point about visa fees and everything else, but by the time we add all those together, I think that UK Inc—whether in my constituency of Witney or across the UK—will still be at a major disadvantage. This risks undermining British labour—

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

The Minister has just heard from across the House continuing pleas to support the hospitality industry. It is always a good day when the Government U-turn and provide more support for pubs, so we welcome that. However, unless the Minister can explain to us when a pub becomes a gastropub, when a gastropub becomes a restaurant, and when a restaurant with rooms becomes a hotel and descends down that wormhole, will she make representations to the Chancellor to extend the same measures for pubs that she U-turned on this week across the whole retail, hospitality and leisure sector? The truth of the matter is that 90% of that sector will not benefit from this week’s U-turn.

[Kate Dearden]

Good morning to the shadow Secretary of State. I am sure he had a stiff drink after his performance at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday.

All pubs and live music venues that meet the definition set out in the guidance qualify for the support, and he will be able to see that clearly online. We will be working with local authorities to ensure that the definition includes establishments open to wide sections of local communities. I have already discussed valuations for pubs, how we take turnover into account and how we will work closely with the wider sector on valuations going forward. This is a Government who are working closely with the sector and are committed to listening. That is being a responsible Government, and we are doing the right thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Of course, it is not just Bracknell, and one day those on the Labour Benches will understand that there are no workers’ rights if people have no work. Youth unemployment is up significantly. That is a tragedy that everybody should be ashamed of, and it is going up on Labour’s watch. Small businesses, which provide so many jobs, are very worried about the administrative burden of trade union access. We are talking about the very smallest businesses—pubs, restaurants, garden centres and small catering businesses. They are the backbone of our communities. As the Minister tries to implement the Employment Rights Act, will she consider lifting the threshold for the trade union access agreements to a headcount of 250—that is recognised elsewhere in law as a threshold—which would protect our very smallest businesses from that administrative burden?

[Kate Dearden]

To hear the Conservative party try to lecture us across the Dispatch Box on trade union engagement, industrial relations and how we operate our economy is very interesting. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am working really closely with businesses of all sizes—small and large—and with our trade unions and partners, because that is the right thing to do. The Employment Rights Act is a significant piece of legislation. We want to get it right, but we also want to fundamentally change how we do things in this country. That is the right thing to do, and we are taking the responsible action to do so. We recognise that there are lots of changes, which is why are working in a staged way over the next two years to implement them, and we are doing so in partnership with businesses and trade unions. We want to work together to deliver this. It represents significant change for 18 million people across the country, and businesses are vital in delivering it. That is why we are working together to do so.

Employment Rights Bill

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

The concerns that we Conservatives have with the Bill have long been known, and I accept that we have debated them at length. I will not repeat them all today, because we are not here to debate the whole Bill, just the message sent to us from the other place.

There was a time when the Labour party would have cared about protecting jobs and those who wanted one. There was a time when Labour believed, as we do, in the dignity of work and what that meant for families and communities—a Christian socialism, if you like, rather than the state worship that seems to have replaced it. I cannot honestly think of a previous Government who would ever have passed this Bill—certainly not since the 1970s. The result, whether Labour likes it or not, is that day by day, week by week, month by month, people are losing their jobs.

This Christmas there will be 192,000 fewer people in private sector payrolled employment than last Christmas, and who knows what it will be like next Christmas. We have the worst ever graduate jobs market. Adzuna estimates that jobs for degree holders have fallen by 33%. Labour used to care about youth unemployment, but for those aged between 16 and 24 unemployment has now reached 15%, according to the Office for National Statistics. As has been the case every month so far under this Government, tomorrow morning we are likely to hear that the rate of unemployment is higher.

This Bill could have been on the statute book today, but for one simple reason: a gross betrayal of trust. The small group of business groups that Ministers invited in for tea and sandwiches took this Government at their word.

[Antonia Bance]

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would like to tell the House which of these business groups he disagrees with and that he thinks we should not listen to today, because these are the groups telling us and peers in the other place that we should be voting for the Bill. Does he disagree with the British Chambers of Commerce or the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development? Does he disagree with the Confederation of British Industry, with the Federation of Small Businesses, with the Recruitment and Employment Confederation or with Small Business Britain?

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Lady would have been wise to contain her excitement, because I agree with all of those groups in their letter today, which the Minister selectively quoted; she did not quote them saying that they are not in favour of removing the cap. I have spoken to each and every organisation that was in the room, and they are crystal clear, with one group saying:

“That was not a concession discussed with us or agreed by us in the negotiations”.

I invite the Minister to intervene on me if she thinks that a word of what I say is wrong. She is misquoting, and it is misrepresenting those business groups that do not support the cap.

Why would any sane Government scrap the cap entirely? Indeed, this Government themselves did not for 13 and a half of the 14 months that we have been debating this Bill. It was not in the manifesto or the Bill or the impact assessment. It was not considered by the Regulatory Policy Committee, and it was never discussed in this House until Ministers threw it in at the last moment in a breach of trust of the business groups with which they negotiated.

[Angela Rayner]

I know where this came from—the new deal for working people—and so do businesses and the trade unions. As the Minister pointed out, there have been discussions, and they came to that conclusion. What is it about protecting people from unfair dismissal that the shadow Minister has a problem with?

[Andrew Griffith]

What is it about protecting people from unemployment—preventing young people from getting jobs—and from economic growth? The Government of which the right hon. Lady was once a member said that was their No. 1 priority and their obsession, but they have singularly failed to deliver it.

Conservative Members want to get Britain working again. We want jobs for those young people—we think it is a stain on our character that 15% of young people are unemployed—and all we get from Labour is union-paid representatives trying to put more people out of jobs and deny young people more opportunities.

[Angela Rayner]

rose—

[Andrew Griffith]

Yes, come back on that.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way again; he is being generous with his time. Why does he not have a problem with people being often in insecure, low-paid work without any contract that gives them regular hours? Does he realise how difficult that makes it for young people—any person—to have any security in their life? That was what he presided over in his 14 years of failure, and that is why Labour was elected on this manifesto promise.

[Andrew Griffith]

Our Government created 4 million new jobs. This Government have lost jobs every single month they have been in office.

The points that the right hon. Lady makes are not those we are debating. There is one issue in front of us, which is Labour’s desire to defend and remove a cap of £118,000. That has nothing to do with ordinary workers. What does it say about today’s modern Labour party that its focus, and the whole reason why we are back here and the compromise was not accepted, is its desire to remove a cap of £118,000, which will only ever benefit the better off?

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister recall that in 1999 when the Blair Government increased the cap, they held a consultation beforehand, and that in 2015 when the coalition Government introduced a cap, they held a consultation beforehand? Why are this Government behaving differently?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I hope somebody on the Labour Benches will address. We have seen no analysis and we have no idea of the cost of this measure. Not a single business—not a single person who employs people—has come out and endorsed the removal of the cap. It is beyond me, I am afraid.

Yet what is happening in our employment tribunals? On Friday, as I am sure the Minister knows, it was revealed that the delay and backlogs at the employment tribunal have reached their highest ever level. At the end of the most recent quarter, there were 515,000 open claims. Before anyone intervenes, let me say that I accept that much of that was inherited—[Interruption.] But before Labour Members laugh: the Government are making it worse. Merely since the Bill was introduced to this place, the claims backlog has increased by 65,000. They are doing nothing to address the backlog, which is going up every single month—I do not think they have even discussed it with their calamity of a Justice Secretary —and we know that they have carried out no impact assessment. It is extraordinary. The scrapping of the compensation cap for the highest paid will simply stoke the fire.

I make it a rule not to learn lessons in how to run an economy from France, but even France introduced a cap on tribunal payments to tackle unemployment and encourage labour market dynamism. Perhaps we should take advice from closer to home: today the Health Secretary seems to be no fan at all of giving more powers to unaccountable unions.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

Happily, if the hon. Member will talk about how he will fix our NHS.

[Laurence Turner]

The debate is on the Employment Rights Bill, although I struggle to follow the line of logic in the hon. Member’s speech. He said that the effect of the change would be to benefit the wealthiest employees, but chief executive officers and other senior executives rarely seek recourse to employment tribunals, for a number of reasons. Can he name a single CEO or equivalent who has pursued a case for an employment tribunal?

[Andrew Griffith]

Well no, I cannot, because there is a cap—the very cap that the hon. Member’s party is seeking to remove. I try not to be uncharitable about the complete absence of business experience in the Cabinet, but that level of question, together with that impact, is just embarrassing.

The Minister in her remarks—there was not much of an argument; it was really just a critique—blamed peers in the other place for the Government’s own failures. Notwithstanding how peers are doing the constitutional job we ask them to do, Lyndon B. Johnson said that the first rule of politics is to learn how to count. The Government lost the vote on its unemployment Bill last week by 24 votes, but 65 of their own peers did not want anything to do with the Bill—they did not turn up and did not vote. During the passage of the Bill, one Labour peer has even resigned his peerage and joined the exodus of wealth creators to the United Arab Emirates because of what he sees. The Resolution Foundation and the Tony Blair Institute have both criticised the Bill.

By removing that £118,000 compensation cap, the Government are not protecting the vulnerable. If that is what they wish to do, there are other ways to do that, but ordinary workers will never benefit from that. It is a genuinely mad world; I do not understand why we are having this debate.

This time last week, the Liberal Democrats agreed with me on this. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) has been campaigning for the boss of South East Water to be fired, but without a cap his payout could be millions. Is that really what they want? What changed, other than the appearance of five new Liberal Democrat peers?

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will do so briefly. After that, I want to conclude.

[Graham Stuart]

I am extremely grateful. My hon. Friend is setting out a powerful case. We are puzzled, because a system designed for ordinary workers that has a sensible cap is now being opened up to the very CEOs who, as has been highlighted, would not have previously used it. We have a Labour party in hock to the unions yet strangely proposing a measure that was not included their manifesto which can only help the rich. What happened to the Labour party?

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will leave that hanging there and hope that Labour Members will address it.

In conclusion, I ask the Government at this eleventh hour to pull back from the brink and introduce a financial cap so that we can get this business done this week. They have no consent from business, and they sought no support for it in their manifesto. I have talked about youth unemployment and the level of redundancies. We Conservatives will get Britain working again. We will end the attacks on employers and repeal the job-killing measures in the Bill. For the sake of businesses, for the sake of the backlog and for the sake of Britain, the Government should accept the Lords amendment and drop their motion.